[ChicagoCard]

The tweet here pretty much says it all, and has a link to the video. How can the league not at least say there was a missed call here?...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GoMightyCard/status/1044816256774410243[/tweet]

[ChicagoCard]

The tweet here pretty much says it all, and has a link to the video. How can the league not at least say there was a missed call here?...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GoMightyCard/status/1044816256774410243[/tweet]

[fullmetal]

Admit fault?  The Pac-12...?  Sigh...

[fullmetal]

Admit fault?  The Pac-12...?  Sigh...

[oldalum]

was it even called as a late hit on the QB?

[oldalum]

was it even called as a late hit on the QB?

[ChicagoCard]

Being on Central Time I didn't make it that far. But no, there was no penalty. Apparently it occurred late in the game right before WSU missed a crucial field goal (or had it blocked). So presumably it could have affected the ultimate outcome. And I heard some conjecture of the WSU QB being a little shaken up after that. But apparently remained in the game.

[ChicagoCard]

Being on Central Time I didn't make it that far. But no, there was no penalty. Apparently it occurred late in the game right before WSU missed a crucial field goal (or had it blocked). So presumably it could have affected the ultimate outcome. And I heard some conjecture of the WSU QB being a little shaken up after that. But apparently remained in the game.

[CardinalSagehen]

That non-call was a travesty.  

Here’s another targeting call that definitely affected the outcome of a game:
http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=24694571

The targeting by SDSU resulted in the ASU receiver barely dropping the ball on the 1 yard-line with very little time remaining.  On replay, the catch was overturned and targeting was confirmed.  So ASU benefited from the 15 yards, but still had a long way to go and didn't end up making it.  The assumption is that they would have been able to punch it in from the 1 yard-line.  

This led to ASU fans calling for targeting to be a spot foul rather than a 15-yard penalty. I’d probably agree with that rule change (except when it’s borderline and it goes against my team!)

[CardinalSagehen]

That non-call was a travesty.  

Here’s another targeting call that definitely affected the outcome of a game:
http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=24694571

The targeting by SDSU resulted in the ASU receiver barely dropping the ball on the 1 yard-line with very little time remaining.  On replay, the catch was overturned and targeting was confirmed.  So ASU benefited from the 15 yards, but still had a long way to go and didn't end up making it.  The assumption is that they would have been able to punch it in from the 1 yard-line.  

This led to ASU fans calling for targeting to be a spot foul rather than a 15-yard penalty. I’d probably agree with that rule change (except when it’s borderline and it goes against my team!)

[PVTree]

The tweet here pretty much says it all, and has a link to the video. How can the league not at least say there was a missed call here?...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GoMightyCard/status/1044816256774410243[/tweet]

Dang! That looks like a flagrant, not borderline, foul. Unbelievable how nothing was called.

[PVTree]

The tweet here pretty much says it all, and has a link to the video. How can the league not at least say there was a missed call here?...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GoMightyCard/status/1044816256774410243[/tweet]

Dang! That looks like a flagrant, not borderline, foul. Unbelievable how nothing was called.

[Renaissance Man]

I continue to wonder why, if a player faces a suspension if targeting is called on the field, or from the booth, suspensions can't be given during the week for targeting calls that were missed.  The perception of bias could be addressed, especially if there are patterns to home team, big programs, etc. being allowed to get away with targeting during games.

[Renaissance Man]

I continue to wonder why, if a player faces a suspension if targeting is called on the field, or from the booth, suspensions can't be given during the week for targeting calls that were missed.  The perception of bias could be addressed, especially if there are patterns to home team, big programs, etc. being allowed to get away with targeting during games.

[M T]

I continue to wonder why, if a player faces a suspension if targeting is called on the field, or from the booth, suspensions can't be given during the week for targeting calls that were missed.  The perception of bias could be addressed, especially if there are patterns to home team, big programs, etc. being allowed to get away with targeting during games.

There is such a rule:

Foul Not Called
ARTICLE 2. If subsequent review of a game by a conference reveals plays
involving flagrant personal fouls that game officials did not call, the conference
may impose sanctions prior to the next scheduled game.

[M T]

I continue to wonder why, if a player faces a suspension if targeting is called on the field, or from the booth, suspensions can't be given during the week for targeting calls that were missed.  The perception of bias could be addressed, especially if there are patterns to home team, big programs, etc. being allowed to get away with targeting during games.

There is such a rule:

Foul Not Called
ARTICLE 2. If subsequent review of a game by a conference reveals plays
involving flagrant personal fouls that game officials did not call, the conference
may impose sanctions prior to the next scheduled game.

[Renaissance Man]

I continue to wonder why, if a player faces a suspension if targeting is called on the field, or from the booth, suspensions can't be given during the week for targeting calls that were missed.  The perception of bias could be addressed, especially if there are patterns to home team, big programs, etc. being allowed to get away with targeting during games.

There is such a rule:

Foul Not Called
ARTICLE 2. If subsequent review of a game by a conference reveals plays
involving flagrant personal fouls that game officials did not call, the conference
may impose sanctions prior to the next scheduled game.

Has this rule ever been enforced?  It seems like if it is not used this week, it never will be.

[Renaissance Man]

I continue to wonder why, if a player faces a suspension if targeting is called on the field, or from the booth, suspensions can't be given during the week for targeting calls that were missed.  The perception of bias could be addressed, especially if there are patterns to home team, big programs, etc. being allowed to get away with targeting during games.

There is such a rule:

Foul Not Called
ARTICLE 2. If subsequent review of a game by a conference reveals plays
involving flagrant personal fouls that game officials did not call, the conference
may impose sanctions prior to the next scheduled game.

Has this rule ever been enforced?  It seems like if it is not used this week, it never will be.

[M T]

Has this rule ever been enforced?  It seems like if it is not used this week, it never will be.

In  WBB, there is a similar rule about fighting (but not about uncalled flagrant fouls).  I once wrote the head of PAC-12 WBB officials about an uncalled event where one player seemingly (you could see her eyes) intentionally threw the ball at another player's face.  Fighting, by definition, includes things like striking an opponent with fists, chairs, etc., but the ball isn't mentioned (but neither is it excluded).  The official never responded.  I realized the conference will probably only listen if the offended school makes an issue of it.  That's  probably a reasonable standard.

The school, on the other hand, will probably only complain if 1) the player suffered an injury, or 2) there is an outcry by the public they must respond to.   Making such a complaint will likely cause ill feelings by the opponent, the conference, and (most importantly) the officials.  As we all know officials have (and use) great latitude in their calls.  They know and we know there is little you can do to show bias on their part.

[M T]

Has this rule ever been enforced?  It seems like if it is not used this week, it never will be.

In  WBB, there is a similar rule about fighting (but not about uncalled flagrant fouls).  I once wrote the head of PAC-12 WBB officials about an uncalled event where one player seemingly (you could see her eyes) intentionally threw the ball at another player's face.  Fighting, by definition, includes things like striking an opponent with fists, chairs, etc., but the ball isn't mentioned (but neither is it excluded).  The official never responded.  I realized the conference will probably only listen if the offended school makes an issue of it.  That's  probably a reasonable standard.

The school, on the other hand, will probably only complain if 1) the player suffered an injury, or 2) there is an outcry by the public they must respond to.   Making such a complaint will likely cause ill feelings by the opponent, the conference, and (most importantly) the officials.  As we all know officials have (and use) great latitude in their calls.  They know and we know there is little you can do to show bias on their part.

[GoodGrief]

Remember when Francis Owusu got a concussion from a helmet to helmet hit? The Pac-12 office IMMEDIATELY issued an official statement stating that no penalty was warranted because he was not hit by the “crown of the helmet.” 
Whereupon the NFL (edit: sorry I meant NCAA) immediately issued a statement saying that the crown of the helmet is the whole freaking helmet, baasically correcting the Pac-12’s completely wrong statement on what constitutes the crown of the helmet. Whereupon the Pac-12 office said  absolutely nothing.  I also emailed Larry Scott and the Pac-12 head of officiating and other Pac-12 officials and heard absolutely no response from them. The Pac-12 head of officiating is a gutless wimp.

[GoodGrief]

Remember when Francis Owusu got a concussion from a helmet to helmet hit? The Pac-12 office IMMEDIATELY issued an official statement stating that no penalty was warranted because he was not hit by the “crown of the helmet.” 
Whereupon the NFL (edit: sorry I meant NCAA) immediately issued a statement saying that the crown of the helmet is the whole freaking helmet, baasically correcting the Pac-12’s completely wrong statement on what constitutes the crown of the helmet. Whereupon the Pac-12 office said  absolutely nothing.  I also emailed Larry Scott and the Pac-12 head of officiating and other Pac-12 officials and heard absolutely no response from them. The Pac-12 head of officiating is a gutless wimp.

[CTcard]

Remember when Francis Owusu got a concussion from a helmet to helmet hit? The Pac-12 office IMMEDIATELY issued an official statement stating that no penalty was warranted because he was not hit by the “crown of the helmet.” 
Whereupon the NFL immediately issued a statement saying that the crown of the helmet is the whole freaking helmet, baasically correcting the Pac-12’s completely wrong statement on what constitutes the crown of the helmet. Whereupon the Pac-12 office said  absolutely nothing.  I also emailed Larry Scott and the Pac-12 head of officiating and other Pac-12 officials and heard absolutely no response from them. The Pac-12 head of officiating is a gutless wimp.

Going from memory here, which is dangerous, but the details as I remember them are:

The Pac 12 issued a statement saying that by the current NCAA definition Owusu was not hit by the crown of the helmet. Shaw complained that was a stupid definition. 
The NFL has their own rules, so isn't really in a position to correct the Pac 12. 
That off season, the NCAA changed the definition of the crown of the helmet such that the hit on Owusu would be targeting.

[CTcard]

Remember when Francis Owusu got a concussion from a helmet to helmet hit? The Pac-12 office IMMEDIATELY issued an official statement stating that no penalty was warranted because he was not hit by the “crown of the helmet.” 
Whereupon the NFL immediately issued a statement saying that the crown of the helmet is the whole freaking helmet, baasically correcting the Pac-12’s completely wrong statement on what constitutes the crown of the helmet. Whereupon the Pac-12 office said  absolutely nothing.  I also emailed Larry Scott and the Pac-12 head of officiating and other Pac-12 officials and heard absolutely no response from them. The Pac-12 head of officiating is a gutless wimp.

Going from memory here, which is dangerous, but the details as I remember them are:

The Pac 12 issued a statement saying that by the current NCAA definition Owusu was not hit by the crown of the helmet. Shaw complained that was a stupid definition. 
The NFL has their own rules, so isn't really in a position to correct the Pac 12. 
That off season, the NCAA changed the definition of the crown of the helmet such that the hit on Owusu would be targeting.

[CompSci87]

Also from memory, wasn't that Chris Owusu? Francis's older brother.

[CompSci87]

Also from memory, wasn't that Chris Owusu? Francis's older brother.

[GoodGrief]

It was definitely Francis Owusu. I think we’ve had 3 Owusu concussions in a Stanford uniform. 

And yes, sorry—i meant to say the NCAA, not the NFL immediately issued a statement that pretty much said, “Pac-12 officiating is for crap and doesn’t know what the crown of the helmet is.”

This is the article i forwarded to the Pac-12  execs. 
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...own-helmet

[GoodGrief]

It was definitely Francis Owusu. I think we’ve had 3 Owusu concussions in a Stanford uniform. 

And yes, sorry—i meant to say the NCAA, not the NFL immediately issued a statement that pretty much said, “Pac-12 officiating is for crap and doesn’t know what the crown of the helmet is.”

This is the article i forwarded to the Pac-12  execs. 
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...own-helmet

[martyup]

Larry Scott attempts the clear the air, but only further muddies the water.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ll-wsu-usc

[martyup]

Larry Scott attempts the clear the air, but only further muddies the water.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ll-wsu-usc