|
These two calls (Stan-UCLA and UM-PSU), along with the ND-TX non call, really upset me. I thought the past couple years that we were finally getting some consistency with calls and there was at least grudging acceptance of the rule. Yea, there were some non-calls and some grumbling here and there, but I thought the addition of the booth review possibility would help there. I'm afraid it may have made it worse.
I am still baffled at the non-call in the ND-TX game. I'm sure there were other non-calls last year and maybe this year that I just didn't see that were equally wrong, so fully admit that it may be recency or vividness bias, but such a high profile situation only undermines acceptance and understanding of this rule. I know some have argued that it wasn't targeting, but I vehemently disagreed then and still do now. It's exactly the kind of dangerous kill shot that we have to get out of the game, and to me met multiple criteria of the rule. But I digress...
As to yesterday, I am amazed the UM-PSU call wasn't overturned. The defender didn't initiate any contact at all, he was trying to intercept the pass! Two players trying to catch a ball and very unfortunately tried to do so at the same time. Violent contact - but purely incidental. I didn't even think it was all that close.
And the Stanford-UCLA hit to me was absolutely targeting. I don't know what else we need to see - a launch, no attempt to wrap, clear intent to punish, initiating contact with the crown despite them saying it wasn't. Are we really going to Zapruder whether it was was 'just' the forehead of the helmet and not the crown? Heck, I'd put this into the egregious miss category.
|