Targeting Call on TJ Carter

[hiphopfroggy]

Lmao. You couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, CJ didn't even begin to extend his arm, let alone touch the UT receiver, until after the ball was in the air. So your claim that it should have been holding and that "His left hand was grabbing his jersey and holding him back well before the ball was thrown" is just embarrassingly incorrect.

"Trust me, it was right in front of me." LOL

"Just get annoyed with statements like “absolutely horrendous call” when it so clearly wasn’t. It was an obvious hold. Again, before the ball was even thrown." LOL LOL LOL LOL.

Watch the replay.
1. CJ doesn't touch the receiver until after the ball is in the air. So no. Holding isn't even on the table.
2. CJ extends his arm, but barely touches the receiver. Does he pull on him a little bit? Maybe. But that type of minimum contact is almost never called.
3. The Texas receiver falls down on his own out of desperation to draw the penalty
4. The ball is way overthrown and clearly uncatchable, even if CJ doesn't extend his arm.
5. It was an absolutely horrendous call.
6. You are a condescending prick that isn't near as smart or right as you always think you are.

Yep, #18 just did a complete dive, and the refs gave it to him.

 

[Paul in uhh]

I thought the PI call on Caesar was terrible as well. Dude would have had to have been like 20 feet tall to make a play on that ball.

Exactly what I said when it happened. Almost verbatim.

 

[Paul in uhh]

Tank Carder would have been ejected from every game in the 1st quarter. Lol.

Marvin White hit would be a full game suspension

 

[TxFrog1999]

If we are talking about the same play, no, it wasn’t a terrible call. And I assume we are since I think that was only time Caesar got called for PI. It should have been holding though, not PI. Caesar was literally holding his jersey keeping the kid from running full speed, before the ball was thrown.

Flag was throw well after that hold and only after the receiver fell down in the area of him falling flat on his face. Call was not holding but PI, so it was a bad call.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the ref that threw the flag was downfield in front of them and didn't have an angle to see Ceaser's slight grab of the back of the jersey. He was simply going on the fact that he fell over, nothing else.

 

[BrewingFrog]

Flag was throw well after that hold and only after the receiver fell down in the area of him falling flat on his face. Call was not holding but PI, so it was a bad call.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the ref that threw the flag was downfield in front of them and didn't have an angle to see Ceaser's slight grab of the back of the jersey. He was simply going on the fact that he fell over, nothing else.

It wasn't just falling over, it was a full-on soccer flop, complete with anguished bleat, that would have made Messi nod in appreciation...

I would think that, as an official, you tuck the flag away after such a tantrum. Like the guys who raise their hands: "I didn't do it!" are plainly guilty, the receivers who act as if their spleen was torn out weren't touched.

 

[Horny4TCU]

Every call should go for the other teams playing UT and OU. On their way out, don't let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya. And if it does, I hope it hits like Mack truck.

 

[WhatTheFrog]

When an official needs to take 2 to 3 minutes to review a targeting issue, it seems to me that either there was no targeting or the officials were 'looking' for a way to find targeting. If there was an actual, 'no doubt' targeting, it shouldn't take nearly 3 minutes to determine the foul. That play was a huge game changer and the officials injected themselves into the game with a penalty that they had to work extremely hard to discover.

None of the officials on the field thought it was targeting...

 

[4th. down]

The inconsistency of how it's called from game to game is the most maddening part of this rule to me. I've seen far worse instances of targeting that were called as such on the field then overturned by the booth. It's probably the most impactful penalty in the game and it's just called at the whim of a single person in the booth.

I remember a time when you were supposed to have "clear and incontrovertible evidence" to overturn a call on the field. But now most video replays seem to entail the same level of subjectivity as a holding or PI call on the field.

I'm sure we still would've figured out a way to lose the game so I don't pin this loss on that call but there's no arguing that it had an absolutely massive impact on the game.

All of the above and we didn't have any safeties left and he's our 2nd. best secondary player. It really hurt us and where is there head to head contact? Nothing GP could do about it, too much authority given to 1 person. Wonder what would have happened if Saban was the coach and his player was TJ........NOTHING, no penalty, no target, no ejection. It is what it is. I would suspect that GP might build on this to refocus on his chip on the shoulder routine to his players, bringing some focus and hard hitting football back to the defense. Gonna need it in Lubbock at night.

 

[netty2424]

Terrible targeting call. changed the course of the game, no doubt about it, at the very least just from a personnel standpoint already being thin in the secondary.

Also ship call on the PI. @TxFrog1999 nailed it, the downfield judge was not in a position to even see the hold. Player flopped and the official got bamboozled on that one.

As for targeting, maybe only eject the player if the receiver is injured, through that game. If the injured player is out a play, or series, or game, the penalized player should mirror it. Otherwise, 15 yards and automatic first down.

 

[Wexahu]

All of the above and we didn't have any safeties left and he's our 2nd. best secondary player. It really hurt us and where is there head to head contact? Nothing GP could do about it, too much authority given to 1 person. Wonder what would have happened if Saban was the coach and his player was TJ........NOTHING, no penalty, no target, no ejection. It is what it is. I would suspect that GP might build on this to refocus on his chip on the shoulder routine to his players, bringing some focus and hard hitting football back to the defense. Gonna need it in Lubbock at night.

Does the ref on the field make the determination after review, or is it someone upstairs? Thought I saw the field ref looking into a screen for several minutes, which wouldn’t make sense if it’s the latter. Anyway, a legitimate targeting wouldn’t take that long to review as others have pointed out. I bet I’ve seen half a dozen ridiculous targeting calls already this year, it’s a completely unfair rule for defenders. Even the ones that are technically targeting (which this one wasn’t) look mostly accidental.

 

[ECM]

There really needs to be a distinction between someone launching with intent vs making a football play. Just because you hit someone on the helmet with your helmet shouldnt be automatically a penalty (And Carter didn’t even do that - hit him in the shoulder)

 

[CountryFrog]

There really needs to be a distinction between someone launching with intent vs making a football play. Just because you hit someone on the helmet with your helmet shouldnt be automatically a penalty (And Carter didn’t even do that - hit him in the shoulder)

I agree.

Now get the scheiss out of here you scheissing little pony before I have to press like on another one of your posts!

 

[CountryFrog]

In the case of Maniac vs Wex, it is the opinion of this court that Wex was unable to fully substantiate his claim of Maniac being totally full of [ Finebaum ] (paraphrasing). While Maniac was able to bring substantial video evidence to the table which only furthered his original claim, Wex had only hearsay and speculation that was not backed up by any additional physical evidence or eyewitness testimony.

Therefore, despite his histrionics and foul language, this court rules in favor of TCUManiac. All charges brought forth by Wexahu are dropped and he shall no longer pursue further action on said accusations. Case dismissed.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

Finally saw the play in question. You can disagree with the rule, but based on the one angle I saw (looks like the normal TV shot), it sure appeared as though he lowered his head and made contact to a defenseless player with the crown of his helmet. That’s targeting.

 

[CountryFrog]

Finally saw the play in question. You can disagree with the rule, but based on the one angle I saw (looks like the normal TV shot), it sure appeared as though he lowered his head and made contact to a defenseless player with the crown of his helmet. That’s targeting.

The rule states that it most be "forcible contact" and not simply contact. Then of course we get into a subjective argument about what constitutes forcible contact or otherwise. There is absolutely contact with Carter's helmet, however, you do see him slide to the side and end up with his shoulder into the chest of the receiver. I would say that the shoulder is what made the forcible contact and his head is simply attached to those shoulders.

The bigger problem, though, is definitely the rule itself and how it's judged. Carter is clearly trying to avoid head to head contact. Literally the only way to avoid such contact is to drop your head lower than the receivers head. So his head has to come down. The only thing you can say that he could've done different is just take out the receivers legs but I think he went in the way he did because that was also where the ball was coming in.

Ultimately, I agree with others that this is something that you only really even see any potential targeting when you slow the video way down. And if you're having to look frame by frame and zoom in to even notice the potential of targeting then I don't feel that meets the spirit of the forcible contact portion of the rule. This is a very clear football play. He's doing the best thing he can to seperate the ball from the receiver without going to the head of the receiver or launching himself. That's supposed to be what we want the players to do in these situations.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

The rule states that it most be "forcible contact" and not simply contact. Then of course we get into a subjective argument about what constitutes forcible contact or otherwise. There is absolutely contact with Carter's helmet, however, you do see him slide to the side and end up with his shoulder into the chest of the receiver. I would say that the shoulder is what made the forcible contact and his head is simply attached to those shoulders.

The bigger problem, though, is definitely the rule itself and how it's judged. Carter is clearly trying to avoid head to head contact. Literally the only way to avoid such contact is to drop your head lower than the receivers head. So his head has to come down. The only thing you can say that he could've done different is just take out the receivers legs but I think he went in the way he did because that was also where the ball was coming in.

Ultimately, I agree with others that this is something that you only really even see any potential targeting when you slow the video way down. And if you're having to look frame by frame and zoom in to even notice the potential of targeting then I don't feel that meets the spirit of the forcible contact portion of the rule. This is a very clear football play. He's doing the best thing he can to seperate the ball from the receiver without going to the head of the receiver or launching himself. That's supposed to be what we want the players to do in these situations.

not arguing whether the rule as written should exist or not, only that the rule as written was violated. From the angle I saw, the crown of his helmet blasted the receiver’s shoulder.

 

[NewFrogFan]

It didn’t look like targeting to me. TJ hit the guy’s shoulder with his own shoulder.

Yes yes yes.

 

[NewFrogFan]

Marvin White hit would be a full game suspension

I had a former AA safety for TCU at my tailgate who said he would have never been able to tackle anyone if TC hit was targeting.

 

[JugbandFrog]

Was it a clean hit? Yes. Was it a proper tackle? No. Head down. No arms wrapping around the defender. Leaving his feet. Not following through to the ground.

I can see why it was called mostly because he had his head down.

 

[drizzle]

Does the ref on the field make the determination after review, or is it someone upstairs? Thought I saw the field ref looking into a screen for several minutes, which wouldn’t make sense if it’s the latter. Anyway, a legitimate targeting wouldn’t take that long to review as others have pointed out. I bet I’ve seen half a dozen ridiculous targeting calls already this year, it’s a completely unfair rule for defenders. Even the ones that are technically targeting (which this one wasn’t) look mostly accidental.

The replay official makes the determination. The referee has been given a monitor in recent years while they communicate with the replay official so the referee can better explain the call.

As to the length of the review - the replay official knows when TV is on break, which they did on this review. No need to rush the review when there’s a media timeout anyway.