BTN network defending targeting call for OSU

[L.A.Lion]

If not for replay that call wouldn’t have been made since no penalty flag was thrown. Replay for targeting has only been around since 2016. So, how do all refs on the field miss a hit so obviously illegal and dirty?

Good question. Doesn't matter. Wade lowered his head and made contact using the crown of his helmet in violation of the targeting rule. Good call. Good ejection. End of story.

 

[UncleLar]

How do you tackle then? With your chest? Biology suggests your head goes first. Not sure how you tackle while making sure your head is behind everything else.

You regularly lead with your head like that and there's a good chance you wind up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Good question. Doesn't matter. Wade lowered his head and made contact using the crown of his helmet in violation of the targeting rule. Good call. Good ejection. End of story.

LOL. Nothing ever ends...

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Good question. Doesn't matter. Wade lowered his head and made contact using the crown of his helmet in violation of the targeting rule. Good call. Good ejection. End of story.

Actually, the Official watching backfield on a deep drop like that is Referee who maintains an angle behind QB. Would have a very poor angle to a straight-on hit like that (QB himself would be blocking view). It was quite obvious from camera angles and game was stopped for review.

 

[Stargellfan]

It was a dirty play. **** the BTN and it's half rate, amateur shows. The B10 suck but we'll never leave the conference. Healthier to just hate everything about the conference instead of having the fantasy that anything will change.

It was the correct interpretation of the rule as it is currently written, but there was absolutely nothing dirty about that play. You couldn't even tell he lowered his head until it was slowed down on replay. I hate that players are ejected for hits that you wouldn't have given a 2nd thought to even a few years ago. I understand the desire to force defensive players to keep their heads up, so if you want to penalize 15 yards that is fine, but limit ejections to truly dirty hits.

 

[flash86]

Textbook targeting and proper call from the tweet. If Wade didn’t lower his helmet and would have instead kept his head up it’s all good. Young should have also received an unsportsmanlike penalty for trying to rip his head off.

You look at what you tackle!

 

[auxgym]

I thought it was called wrong. 15 yard penalty, yes. Ejection, no.

Targeting is launching up into the guy. He just put his head down and the QB ducked.

A player does not have to launch to be called for targeting. A launch is but one example.

 

[TheGLOV]

Turned on the BTN in the background this morning to get some PSU highlights. They teased it a couple of times, but have yet to see an actual highlight or acknowledgement that someone from the Big14 besides OSU played yesterday. Instead, they keep cutting to discussions about how OSU was jobbed last night. Amazing to me, to a man (mind you 90% OSU grads) they defend the OSU guy called for targeting. It was a quintessential targeting call, he lowered his head and led with the crown of the helmet. I have heard that the OSU playerd "did not have intent," the rule is too harsh and shoule be reduced to a 2 minute or up to one-half, etc etc. Not one mention that the guy should have kept his head up, and then there would have been no targeting call. Not once have I heard any of this discussion about any other targeting call over the years.
Big14, get over it. No matter how many times you get caught paying your players and skirting the rules, OSU still cannot beat a southern team in bowl games (except Arkansas.)

 

[olelion]

Turned on the BTN in the background this morning to get some PSU highlights. They teased it a couple of times, but have yet to see an actual highlight or acknowledgement that someone from the Big14 besides OSU played yesterday. Instead, they keep cutting to discussions about how OSU was jobbed last night. Amazing to me, to a man (mind you 90% OSU grads) they defend the OSU guy called for targeting. It was a quintessential targeting call, he lowered his head and led with the crown of the helmet. I have heard that the OSU playerd "did not have intent," the rule is too harsh and shoule be reduced to a 2 minute or up to one-half, etc etc. Not one mention that the guy should have kept his head up, and then there would have been no targeting call. Not once have I heard any of this discussion about any other targeting call over the years.
Big14, get over it. No matter how many times you get caught paying your players and skirting the rules, OSU still cannot beat a southern team in bowl games (except Arkansas.)

It's one thing to have fans gripe and question officiating. It's expected. But be careful using the mouthpiece of the 2 team conference to bitch about it. It is a big mistake. Ryan Day should be careful and take the high road now and just let the BTN and his fans carry the water

 

[PSUMATT85]

LOL. Nothing ever ends...

Didn’t you say you were done about 50 posts ago?

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Didn’t you say you were done about 50 posts ago?

Nope.

 

[Thomas1945]

You have all gone very far afield on this thread. Back to it’s inception we must understand that the BIG 10 Network would defend OSU completely even if Wade attacked the QB with a sword and decapitated him.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Didn’t you say you were done about 50 posts ago?

He's never "done" being absurdly wrong, while declaring he is unquestionably right, in his typical b1g-douche posing-troll style.

 

[burghBuck]

You have all gone very far afield on this thread. Back to it’s inception we must understand that the BIG 10 Network would defend OSU completely even if Wade attacked the QB with a sword and decapitated him.

I do think THAT should be a 15-yard penalty! As for targeting, I don't like the rule because I think it gets enforced arbitrarily, and ejecting a player based on an arbitrary interpretation is overkill.

That said, even as an OSU fan, I have to acknowledge that Wade's tackle meets the definition of targeting pretty clearly. There was a sack by Clemson in the 4th quarter where I thought the Clemson player targeted Fields, but on replay he clearly led with his shoulder. I do think there is a tendency or just instinct to lower your head when you are about to collide with someone else, so it puts the defensive player in a tough position, but until they change the rule, that's what you're stuck with.. And to be clear, OSU still had every opportunity to win that game and should have, but didn't capitalize when they needed to.

 

[Jerry]

No, it means it can always be called. And it's not my definition - look at the rule. Includes the words 'not limited to,' - so, that means the scope can be expanded for each play. I know you all hate OSU, but it's a bad call and a dumb rule. Later.

Like a lot of targeting calls, this one could be argued either way. No question, though, it was a critical turn-around in the game.

The way my twisted brain works, however, is that it's precisely because I hate OSU that I don't feel the need to defend that call -- or the even more questionable booth reversal of the turnover-TD called on the field in the 2nd half.

Because if you really hate OSU, there's something very satisfying about the idea of the zebras shafting them.

In fact, I just caught part of Day's post-game press conference, and it was almost funny how he kept talking about all the critical "plays" going against OSU, when it was clear he meant "calls." He knows it's a bad look to blame the refs, so he keeps babbling about "plays."

Honestly, they have an outstanding team and played hard, so I'd almost feel bad for them if not for the conference's history of screwing over Penn State in every way possible. Given that, I don't feel bad at all. I'm actually enjoying the hell out of it.

 

[BBrown]

I do think THAT should be a 15-yard penalty! As for targeting, I don't like the rule because I think it gets enforced arbitrarily, and ejecting a player based on an arbitrary interpretation is overkill.

That said, even as an OSU fan, I have to acknowledge that Wade's tackle meets the definition of targeting pretty clearly. There was a sack by Clemson in the 4th quarter where I thought the Clemson player targeted Fields, but on replay he clearly led with his shoulder. I do think there is a tendency or just instinct to lower your head when you are about to collide with someone else, so it puts the defensive player in a tough position, but until they change the rule, that's what you're stuck with.. And to be clear, OSU still had every opportunity to win that game and should have, but didn't capitalize when they needed to.

I kind of agree that the "targeting" penalty needs to be, at least, looked and talked about.
I've seen a few where I think it was accidental and the player didnt deserve to be tossed or suspended for the following game.

I still think it was a scoop and score on the "catch".
But I gotta say what the hell. Did anyone think the Clemson QB was that tough or fast?

 

[burghBuck]

I kind of agree that the "targeting" penalty needs to be, at least, looked and talked about.
I've seen a few where I think it was accidental and the player didnt deserve to be tossed or suspended for the following game.

I still think it was a scoop and score on the "catch".
But I gotta say what the hell. Did anyone think the Clemson QB was that tough or fast?

Lawrence's running was a big difference. I wondered if Clemson emphasized that because OSU struggled a bit when Levis came into the game for Penn State. Don't recall OSU facing any other teams with a real run threat at QB, at least teams that had decent talent otherwise. Lawrence didn't seem especially fast, but he (or the coaching staff) definitely picked the right times to take off when the middle of the field was absolutely wide open and OSU's players took poor angles on him (or he's actually a lot faster than he looks!).

All the reversals and penalties and mistakes aside, if Dobbins had caught those 2 passes in the red zone...the game is won. He played his guts out, so no shame or blame, but man what could have been?!?

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I do think THAT should be a 15-yard penalty! As for targeting, I don't like the rule because I think it gets enforced arbitrarily, and ejecting a player based on an arbitrary interpretation is overkill.

That said, even as an OSU fan, I have to acknowledge that Wade's tackle meets the definition of targeting pretty clearly. There was a sack by Clemson in the 4th quarter where I thought the Clemson player targeted Fields, but on replay he clearly led with his shoulder. I do think there is a tendency or just instinct to lower your head when you are about to collide with someone else, so it puts the defensive player in a tough position, but until they change the rule, that's what you're stuck with.. And to be clear, OSU still had every opportunity to win that game and should have, but didn't capitalize when they needed to.

Wrong, not sure where the hell you grew up playing football, but doing what Wade did has ALWAYS been illegal, and a Personal Foul (and it was quite clearly intentional). "Spearing" (intentionally targeting first-contact of your opponent with the crown of your helmet such that you're intentionally using your helmet as a weapon) is strictly forbidden under the rules AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. You trying to spin it as some "new rule" is laughable. Spearing the way Wade did has always been considered "dirty play" and has ALWAYS been both illegal and an ejectionable Personal Foul.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Like a lot of targeting calls, this one could be argued either way. No question, though, it was a critical turn-around in the game.

The way my twisted brain works, however, is that it's precisely because I hate OSU that I don't feel the need to defend that call -- or the even more questionable booth reversal of the turnover-TD called on the field in the 2nd half.

Because if you really hate OSU, there's something very satisfying about the idea of the zebras shafting them.

In fact, I just caught part of Day's post-game press conference, and it was almost funny how he kept talking about all the critical "plays" going against OSU, when it was clear he meant "calls." He knows it's a bad look to blame the refs, so he keeps babbling about "plays."

Honestly, they have an outstanding team and played hard, so I'd almost feel bad for them if not for the conference's history of screwing over Penn State in every way possible. Given that, I don't feel bad at all. I'm actually enjoying the hell out of it.

Bullshit, it is not debatable - what Wade did is the textbook definition of "Spearing" (intentionally using the crown of your helmet to target first contact on your opponent and thereby use your helmet as a weapon to inflict punishment on your opponent.). "Spearing" has ALWAYS been illegal and an ejectionable Personal Foul. Not only that, but it has always been considered an extremely dirty way to play and tackle (i.e., why Spearing, and now Targeting that it was incorporated under, was under listed under Unsportsmanlike penalties). Again, "Spearing" has always been illegal, an ejectionable Personal Foul and considered a dirty way to play - insinuating it's some new rule is bullshit.

 

[Jerry]

Bullshit, it is not debatable - what Wade did is the textbook definition of "Spearing" (intentionally using the crown of your helmet to target first contact on your opponent and thereby use your helmet as a weapon to inflict punishment on your opponent.). "Spearing" has ALWAYS been illegal and an ejectionable Personal Foul. Not only that, but it has always been considered an extremely dirty way to play and tackle (i.e., why Spearing, and now Targeting that it was incorporated under, was under listed under Unsportsmanlike penalties). Again, "Spearing" has always been illegal, an ejectionable Personal Foul and considered a dirty way to play - insinuating it's some new rule is bullshit.

Well yeah, it is debatable. That's why it's been debated.

As for "spearing," in substance the infraction was very similar to targeting but was never subject to booth review nor, to my knowledge, did it incur an automatic ejection.

Like I said earlier, if you watch much football at all, you know a lot of targeting calls are open to argument. We've seen that same play or something close to it called...or not called...or reversed on review.

Whatever, the point is, I hate the B1G and am happy the Bucks lost. (And if they lost because of zebra screw-ups, so much the better.)

You hate the B1G and are happy the Bucks lost.

Therefore, we agree on the most important thing, which is not a bad place to leave it.

 

[kgilbert78]

I do think THAT should be a 15-yard penalty! As for targeting, I don't like the rule because I think it gets enforced arbitrarily, and ejecting a player based on an arbitrary interpretation is overkill.

That said, even as an OSU fan, I have to acknowledge that Wade's tackle meets the definition of targeting pretty clearly. There was a sack by Clemson in the 4th quarter where I thought the Clemson player targeted Fields, but on replay he clearly led with his shoulder. I do think there is a tendency or just instinct to lower your head when you are about to collide with someone else, so it puts the defensive player in a tough position, but until they change the rule, that's what you're stuck with.. And to be clear, OSU still had every opportunity to win that game and should have, but didn't capitalize when they needed to.

That's the problem. I've not seen the game. But I've seen enough games this year where the flag was thrown--and you never know if the call will stand or not, as the enforcement is quite inconsistent. I thought at least twice this season we (PSU) were going to lose a player to targeting--and didn't. I think one was in the Maryland game. And I still have no idea why or why not. I'm all for safety. Throwing a flag is fine, since it is reviewed. However, I'm not for calls that are apparently made by the flip of a coin after review.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Well yeah, it is debatable. That's why it's been debated.

As for "spearing," in substance the infraction was very similar to targeting but was never subject to booth review nor, to my knowledge, did it incur an automatic ejection.

Like I said earlier, if you watch much football at all, you know a lot of targeting calls are open to argument. We've seen that same play or something close to it called...or not called...or reversed on review.

Whatever, the point is, I hate the B1G and am happy the Bucks lost. (And if they lost because of zebra screw-ups, so much the better.)

You hate the B1G and are happy the Bucks lost.

Therefore, we agree on the most important thing, which is not a bad place to leave it.

Not debatable but no flag on the play. Wow!

 

[mn78psu83]

That's the problem. I've not seen the game. But I've seen enough games this year where the flag was thrown--and you never know if the call will stand or not, as the enforcement is quite inconsistent. I thought at least twice this season we (PSU) were going to lose a player to targeting--and didn't. I think one was in the Maryland game. And I still have no idea why or why not. I'm all for safety. Throwing a flag is fine, since it is reviewed. However, I'm not for calls that are apparently made by the flip of a coin after review.

"Ay, there's the rub."

 

[mn78psu83]

Not debatable but no flag on the play. Wow!

Indeed. We, of course, must consider the source of the claim that "it is not debatable." He brooks no dissent.

 

[darylcu]

Because Lawrence crouched and leaned into the hit with his upper body when Wade got close. If Lawrence stays upright he hits him in his chest.

And it still would have been targeting because he lowered his head. It would have been targeting if he had hit him in the thigh because he did it with the crown of his helmet. Contact with face mask ok, contact with crown of helmet not ok. You clearly don't understand the rule. I know this is several days late but I'm reading your board tonight because it's 1:24am and I'm at work with nothing to do.

 

[darylcu]

And Fuller ( OSU safety) went helmet to helmet with the QB 1 or 2 plays before the targeting....but nothing was mentioned

That's because Lawrence was a runner so he wasn't considered defenseless and the defender had his head up.

 

[SUPERTODD]

Didn’t you say you were done about 50 posts ago?

You probably just assumed that because his argument is so plainly wrong and he understands very little about the actual targeting rule. However, as he has proven repeatedly, knowing things is never a prerequisite for his arguments.