Why was there no penalty?

O

old65horn

1,000+ Posts
When Cook delivered the blow that forced the ISU Fumble, Campbell rushed out on the field to get in the officials face. I do not know why he was so upset, but it really doesn’t matter.

WHY WAS HE NOT FLAGGED AND PENALIZED 15 YARDS?
 
old65horn said:
When Cook delivered the blow that forced the ISU Fumble, Campbell rushed out on the field to get in the officials face. I do not know why he was so upset, but it really doesn’t matter.

WHY WAS HE NOT FLAGGED AND PENALIZED 15 YARDS?
Click to expand...
Totally agree. The coach out at midfield screaming is a slam dunk penalty.
 
Campbell thought it was (1) targeting (it was close); (2) a late hit on the QB who was sliding (while it was not, it was close. defender was in motion before he started the slide)
 
SabreHorn said:
Campbell thought it was (1) targeting (it was close); (2) a late hit on the QB who was sliding (while it was not, it was close. defender was in motion before he started the slide)
Click to expand...
He was not sliding feet first and that made him a normal runner. It wasn't targeting in any way, shape, or form.
 
I have to admit it was nice to have a call go our way. The refs could have called the knee down and/or unnecessary roughness. When the zebra’s were reviewing the play, I thought they were going call against us.
 
QB wasn't sliding. It wasn't helmet to helmet. Campbell should have drawn a flag. Maybe they felt guilt for the roughing the passer call against Ewers earlier. Looked like a very clean, hard hit to me.
 
guy4321 said:
Was targeting reviewed or just the fumble part?
Click to expand...

The fumble was reviewed, but they're allowed to check for the targeting without telling us they're checking for the targeting. My guess is they only used the camera angles they had (the one RG3 kept harping about over and over again) and said there wasn't enough evidence to even mention targeting to the stadium.
 
To RGIII's credit he backed off and retracted once he saw the right camera angle.
He apologized and said it.definitely was not targeting.
 
My remembrance of the play was that the Texas player lowered his helmet, but impacted the shoulder pad of the ISU QB. Is the correct? The impact was on the Texas side of the player, so easy to see how from the ISU side it could have looked like helmet to helmet.

And is it targeting if the tackling player lowers his head but doesn't make contact with the other player's helmet? Does it need to be helmet to helmet for it to be targeting, or does it only need to have the tackling player lower his helmet and lead with that?

And what if the player with the ball lowers his helmet first, as the ISU QB did?
 
Duck Dodgers said:
My remembrance of the play was that the Texas player lowered his helmet, but impacted the shoulder pad of the ISU QB. Is the correct? The impact was on the Texas side of the player, so easy to see how from the ISU side it could have looked like helmet to helmet.

And is it targeting if the tackling player lowers his head but doesn't make contact with the other player's helmet? Does it need to be helmet to helmet for it to be targeting, or does it only need to have the tackling player lower his helmet and lead with that?

And what if the player with the ball lowers his helmet first, as the ISU QB did?
Click to expand...

1. Yes, it seemed that Cook lowered his helmet when he hit Dekker's shoulder. I agree that it could have "looked" like helmet-to-helmet from the sideline.

2. It's targeting with a lowered head and no helmet contact IF AND ONLY IF it's a defenseless player. I don't think anyone can argue that Dekkers was defenseless there.

3. Offensive players can do whatever they want with their heads... the onus is on the defensive player to not make helmet-to-helmet contact with it. Sucks, but it is what it is.
 
Regarding the play, if that is a topic in this thread... QB was hit sideways as Cook was found in. I can't draw it on here, but the QB's trajectory was forced sideways at the last minute. I think Cook was going for the side/edge of QB when it got hit sideways.

My example is that if two cars are driving in opposite directions, and a truck T-bones Car A from the side pushing Car A into oncoming traffic, it's not Car B's fault if they collide.

 
Psyclone said:
Here's a camera angle I don't think was shown on TV. (Warning: Mute the sound.)

Click to expand...

Is this guy high? Have you seen RB’s get hit between the tackles? There is no rule that makes QB special vs a RB running between the tackles. Just because a QB runs more awkward than a RB doesn’t give him halo protection. The stupidity of folks is amazing.
 
I think it makes it more obvious that the first tackler knocked the QB sideways into the other tackler in a bang bang play.
 
Dionysus said:
Terrible call
Click to expand...

At least no one was ejected. Early in the Baylor game we got one of our top defenders ejected for a targeting call that was not flagged on the field, but called by the review officials. Then later in the game Baylor was not called for even worse. The inconsistency is a big problem. The ejection penalty needs revisited. There is too much judgement in these bang-bang plays. Adopting a Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2 level of penalty may be a way to make these marginal calls less impactful on the game outcome.

For the record, from what I saw in the TV replays I believe Dekkers fumbled. I also wasn't clear on targeting and it didn't look like he made helmet to helmet contact. From the opposite angle if that wasn't targeting, I don't know what targeting is.
 
As I understand the rule...
If he was defenseless what we saw would have been targeting.

As he was a runner, not sliding, then arm contact around the helmet is not considered targeting. It would have taken helmet to helmet to draw the flag.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
As I understand the rule...
If he was defenseless what we saw would have been targeting.

As he was a runner, not sliding, then arm contact around the helmet is not considered targeting. It would have taken helmet to helmet to draw the flag.
Click to expand...
It sure looked like helmet to helmet to me. His arm may have made contact first, but it was the helmet glancing blow that caused his head to be jerked to his right (in my opinion - which is worth nothing, and even less on this board).
 
Psyclone said:
It sure looked like helmet to helmet to me. His arm may have made contact first, but it was the helmet glancing blow that caused his head to be jerked to his right (in my opinion - which is worth nothing, and even less on this board).
Click to expand...
How about the no call on Campbell running from across the field to get into the refs face?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top