Targeting rule change proposal

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am a life long Buckeye. That said, what upsets me is that why is the replay official initiating a review when the Game Officials have made a Ruling on the Field and have not asked for a review?

MTD, Sr.

Maybe you should Google “effects of CTE”.

The targeting rule is intended to force players to lower their “strike zones” to areas below the head of their opponent. It’s an effort to lessen potential concussions for both players involved.

The replay officials have the authority (and responsibility) to enforce the targeting rule even if it isn’t initially seen or called on the field. The play in the OK-LSU game is a prime example.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Uh, that’s how replay works in college football.

Originally Posted by CT1

Maybe you should Google “effects of CTE”.

The targeting rule is intended to force players to lower their “strike zones” to areas below the head of their opponent. It’s an effort to lessen potential concussions for both players involved.

The replay officials have the authority (and responsibility) to enforce the targeting rule even if it isn’t initially seen or called on the field. The play in the OK-LSU game is a prime example.

I don't have a problem with being CTE pro-active but there was a Game Official right on top of the play.

What bothered Buckeye fans infinity more was the overturning of the fumble recovery and TD.

MTD, Sr.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What bothered Buckeye fans infinity more was the overturning of the fumble recovery and TD.

What should bother your fans is having to settle for FGs three times, and bailing out the opponent by committing two drive-extending penalties that led to TDs.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by CT1

What should bother your fans is having to settle for FGs three times, and bailing out the opponent by committing two drive-extending penalties that led to TDs.

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Missing opportunities, settling for FGs, untimely penalties, and having a TD taken off the board by a completely unwarranted review are all parts of the story.

If called incomplete on the field, absolutely no beef with 'call stands', but there's no way that should have been reversed - it was reofficiating the play in a very hypertechnical way, not the role of replay. And before that just gets dismissed out of hand as sour grapes by a fan, it's almost unprecedented how many highly respected officiating leaders have said that. Terry McCauley, Bill Carollo, and Rogers Reddings himself have all said that the reversal was incorrect. Does that mean OSU wins? Of course not. But to deny the impact of a high-momentum, lead-changing defensive TD is equally silly.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Missing opportunities, settling for FGs, untimely penalties, and having a TD taken off the board by a completely unwarranted review are all parts of the story.

If called incomplete on the field, absolutely no beef with 'call stands', but there's no way that should have been reversed - it was reofficiating the play in a very hypertechnical way, not the role of replay. And before that just gets dismissed out of hand as sour grapes by a fan, it's almost unprecedented how many highly respected officiating leaders have said that. Terry McCauley, Bill Carollo, and Rogers Reddings himself have all said that the reversal was incorrect. Does that mean OSU wins? Of course not. But to deny the impact of a high-momentum, lead-changing defensive TD is equally silly.

I disagree. In real time, when watching the game, I had an incomplete pass. The receiver never controlled the ball, he only muffed it. The muff did not change the status of the ball (it was a pass). Therefore, the muff hitting the ground results in an incomplete pass. Replay correctly overturned the call.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I disagree. In real time, when watching the game, I had an incomplete pass. The receiver never controlled the ball, he only muffed it. The muff did not change the status of the ball (it was a pass). Therefore, the muff hitting the ground results in an incomplete pass. Replay correctly overturned the call.

Replay is not supposed to reofficiate the play - otherwise, just make it into a sky judge instead of replay. It's to correct clear and obvious errors - that's exactly the words used in the rule book. Again, if called incomplete on the field, no beef, but there was nothing clear and obvious to overturn the call on the field. And also again, it's virtually unheard of how many senior officiating leaders have publicly said so, including Rogers Redding.

[ilyazhito]

Clear and obvious is in the eye of the beholder. What is to say that it wasn't clear and obvious to the replay official that the pass was incomplete, just as it was to me? He and I both watched the play once in real time, and came to a decision based on that.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by CT1

What should bother your fans is having to settle for FGs three times, and bailing out the opponent by committing two drive-extending penalties that led to TDs.

I do not disagree with you. But....

MTD, Sr.

[CT1]

Don’t get me wrong — I agree that the play should have stood as called on the field. If this play had happened in the EZ, would anyone have argued that the result was not a TD?

I just wonder what the call on the field would have been in a game where replay wasn’t in use.