OSU player not suspended for 1st half

[lazydave841]

I was simply pointing out that calls don't always go OSU's way.

While true, THIS instance isn't the one where I would be here saying it.

The video of this incident appears to be targeting via the rules. There is actually nothing that I can see in the video shown here (you may bring forth another for discussion) to say this isn't targeting.

For this to be appealed AND won, it's almost like the conference is saying "we don't think 2nd half targeting penalties should carry over into the following games 1st half."

Another rule change coming perhaps?

 

[LandoComando]

While true, THIS instance isn't the one where I would be here saying it.

The video of this incident appears to be targeting via the rules. There is actually nothing that I can see in the video shown here (you may bring forth another for discussion) to say this isn't targeting.

For this to be appealed AND won, it's almost like the conference is saying "we don't think 2nd half targeting penalties should carry over into the following games 1st half."

Another rule change coming perhaps?

I mean, this is the official statement "The Big Ten went to the NCAA Football Secretary Rules-Editor and, after review, it was determined that this was NOT targeting."
But maybe we see a rule change

 

[jimarnp]

MSN

More opportunities for Tyler and Kaytron to Truck him, and make him wish the call stood.

 

[dailybuck777]

Why didn't they just reverse it on the field? They reviewed it forever, what is new now to change it on Monday? Is this common to reverse a targeting call two days later? They are all reviewed. What is the process? Is this the result of OSU complaining up a storm? Or did some head official look at this for the first time today and say it wasn't targeting? Just get the call right to begin with.

Many stupid calls are upheld on review unfortunately. Jordan Fuller's scoop and score touchdown in Clemson playoff game (receiver took 2 steps before hit) was taken away on review. I haven't read all of the comments here, but here is a link to the play.

OSU won the appeal by going to the NCAA football rules editor. Reese didn't lead with his head and hit the receiver's shoulder causing a fumble which was recovered by OSU. If the play had been correctly called the game would have been over. I would add that I worked for a consumer law firm for a couple of years and one of the lawyers was a big ten referee. He was not a very impressive person and was easily in the bottom 1/4 of lawyers.

(Later addition to post) Here is a better summary.
"
"Ohio State filed an appeal to the Big Ten Conference on behalf of Arvell Reese's action in the fourth quarter of the game," an Ohio State spokesperson said Monday, via Bucknuts. "The Big Ten went to the NCAA Football Secretary Rules-Editor and, after review, it was determined that this was not targeting. Subsequently, Arvell's suspension for the first half versus Penn State is vacated."

Officials flagged Reese for targeting on a hit that was not initiated with the crown of his helmet, but did make contact near the head of Banks, who was deemed defenseless on the play. Replay review upheld the call and ejected Reese from the game. Because it occurred during the second half, by rule, Reese was initially issued a suspension for the first half against Penn State this Saturday." https://247sports.com/article/ohio-...,of the Buckeyes' upcoming game at Penn State.

Don't see how a receiver trying to advance the ball can be viewed as defenseless.

 

[dailybuck777]

The video of this incident appears to be targeting via the rules.

My review of the film, particularly from the back, shows him hitting the shoulder of the receiver. Parenthetically, I would add that Reese is a very good young player who flashes a good bit.

 

[PurposePitch]

Reese didn't lead with his head

Irrelevant to the rule.

and hit the receiver's shoulder

False.

 

[PurposePitch]

What are you talking about? This is yet another example of your spinning things instead of dealing with what is written
Your scenario isn't even a game/match/etc. It's literally you desperately trying to start yet another fight because you need me to be relevant.

No, it’s exposing the absurdity of your positions. And refusing to accept the bet reveals even you understand your absurdity.

 

[LandoComando]

No, it’s exposing the absurdity of your positions. And refusing to accept the bet reveals even you understand your absurdity.

A bet isn't "leave so you can be right"--you're desperate
This doesn't even make sense but you rarely do--officials don't determine the outcomes of games. A call being "wrong" doesn't matter--calls are missed. Just like blocks are missed, assignments are missed, throws are missed, etc. This is basic
The refs aren't going to be perfect and that's okay--but you just want to bitch because that's all you know how to do.

 

[lazydave841]

My review of the film, particularly from the back, shows him hitting the shoulder of the receiver. Parenthetically, I would add that Reese is a very good young player who flashes a good bit.

Those views don't show the play near as well as the one from earlier in the thread. If all I saw was this news cast video, I wouldn't call it targeting either.

The other video shows clear targeting by the letter of the rule. Forcible contact to a defenseless player. Head or shoulder is irrelevant in that case, no?

We had an overzealous LB take a blindside hit penalty on a receiver essentially running straight towards him while a QB was scrambling. I didn't like the penalty, but can understand while it was called.

The same applies here.

 

[MacNit2.0]

MSN

Sort of like being the Governor of California, there are rules for him and then rules for the rest of us.

An absolute complete joke and unprecedented BS. Yet people here will continue defend the Big10.

 

[AWS1022]

Perhaps that is why it was reversed.

The worst targeting call ever happened to PSU against Michigan when our LB was going for an interception…I don’t recall that being reversed. In this case, the call was made, replay upheld it….it should not have been reversed days later and it wouldn’t have been for teams other than OSU and Michigan…that’s the point, not whether it was a good call or not.

 

[dailybuck777]

The other video shows clear targeting by the letter of the rule. Forcible contact to a defenseless player. Head or shoulder is irrelevant in that case, no?

The receiver was trying to advance the ball while being partially tackled by another OSU player. (I looked at the other video) Reese hit him as hard as he could to knock the ball out and make sure the Nebraska player went down. I think that should be allowed and that the Nebraska player wasn't defenseless. I think the Michigan runner who broke what should have been a sure tackle by a USC player late in the game that won the game for Michigan shows why Reese's hit shouldn't be targeting. When someone is fighting for more yardage, he is fair game for hard hits because sometimes when players look like they are going down they aren't.

 

[lazydave841]

When someone is fighting for more yardage, he is fair game for hard hits because sometimes when players look like they are going down they aren't.

Fair game for a proper tackle as well. Players tend to keep going forward more often from hard hits than wrapped up around the waist and legs.

 

[Wandering Spectator]

Here are key parts of the Rule 9-1-4 relevant for this instance. It is beyond me how they can possibly overturn this decision based on the rules as they are written.

No player shall target or make force able contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)


Note 1: "Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield.

A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had the time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

 

[dailybuck777]

A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had the time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

Personally, I believe the receiver had become a ball carrier. He is actually running with the ball with the first OSU player tackling him at his ankles. The receiver could have escaped that tackle.

Here is an explanation from a high school official beginning at 3:14 [my understanding is that high school rules are very similar to college rules) and he states that defenseless players can be hit. The first example of a defenseless player who was hit legally was worse than Reese's hit in that the receiver was hit very hard in the act of catching the ball and not after he caught the ball as the Nebraska player did.

 

[PurposePitch]

A bet isn't "leave so you can be right"--you're desperate

Hey, you can have a cookie if you’re right, too. There. It’s a bet. Now stop side-stepping it and accept it. Be a man.

This doesn't even make sense but you rarely do--officials don't determine the outcomes of games. A call being "wrong" doesn't matter--calls are missed. Just like blocks are missed, assignments are missed, throws are missed, etc. This is basic
The refs aren't going to be perfect and that's okay--but you just want to bitch because that's all you know how to do.

You take a basic concept - that people shouldn’t whine about refs, and shouldn’t focus on the refs … and if they play, they should worry about what they can do to help the team rather than blame the refs … and you go full crazy with it.

Yes, sometimes a ref’s call costs you a game. No, a ref’s call can’t either be made or not be made and it doesn’t matter either way. No, a ref making a call or not isn’t like missing or making a block, as we want to focus on the human element of the play and player, not the folks in charge of enforcing the rules which the participants must abide by … the refs aren’t a “part” of the gameplay.

But you can’t square this stuff. You have to go full nutter extremist.

 

[Wandering Spectator]

Personally, I believe the receiver had become a ball carrier. He is actually running with the ball with the first OSU player tackling him at his ankles. The receiver could have escaped that tackle.

Here is an explanation from a high school official beginning at 3:14 [my understanding is that high school rules are very similar to college rules) and he states that defenseless players can be hit. The first example of a defenseless player who was hit legally was worse than Reese's hit in that the receiver was hit very hard in the act of catching the ball and not after he caught the ball as the Nebraska player did.

View embedded media

We’ll agree to disagree on him becoming a runner but he clearly didn’t have time to protect himself as the rule requires.

Yes, you can hit a defenseless receiver, but not above the head or neck area.

Reese led with his forearm and aimed at the upper part of the receiver’s body. And you can see him driving through the tackle. There was no indication of him pulling up.

Bottom line is, IMHO if it’s this close, it should never be overturned by the NCAA.

 

[SUPERTODD]

Hopefully McGinn’s crew gets this game.

I would bet every dime I own they do not. After watching 2018 in person I believe this game will be fixed.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

The receiver was trying to advance the ball while being partially tackled by another OSU player. (I looked at the other video) Reese hit him as hard as he could to knock the ball out and make sure the Nebraska player went down. I think that should be allowed and that the Nebraska player wasn't defenseless. I think the Michigan runner who broke what should have been a sure tackle by a USC player late in the game that won the game for Michigan shows why Reese's hit shouldn't be targeting. When someone is fighting for more yardage, he is fair game for hard hits because sometimes when players look like they are going down they aren't.

More laughable bullsheat - the receiver was attempting to catch and secure the ball at the time he was hit which is why it was called an incomplete pass on the field. The receiver is entitled to protection while in the act of catching the ball (especially when in the grasp of a second player).

 

[Obliviax]

Did you actually see the play? If targeting it was very borderline. If players get thrown out and suspended for what Reese did, it makes open field tackling increasingly difficult.

Called and upheld.

 

[Nittany1997]

FWIW, I think it was targeting.

 

[PSUWrestlingFanSince2011]

FWIW, I think it was targeting.

Seems pretty clear to me

 

[Delcolion915]

Best way to handle it is to win the game anyways.

 

[LandoComando]

Hey, you can have a cookie if you’re right, too. There. It’s a bet. Now stop side-stepping it and accept it. Be a man.


You take a basic concept - that people shouldn’t whine about refs, and shouldn’t focus on the refs … and if they play, they should worry about what they can do to help the team rather than blame the refs … and you go full crazy with it.

Yes, sometimes a ref’s call costs you a game. No, a ref’s call can’t either be made or not be made and it doesn’t matter either way. No, a ref making a call or not isn’t like missing or making a block, as we want to focus on the human element of the play and player, not the folks in charge of enforcing the rules which the participants must abide by … the refs aren’t a “part” of the gameplay.

But you can’t square this stuff. You have to go full nutter extremist.

Never. Not once has a ref cost a team a game. Just like any other mistake its the team's responsibility to overcome it. Games are 60 minutes. One play or call never determines the game. Never. That's not an extremist take. That's basic.

 

[dailybuck777]

Seems pretty clear to me

I think you should take a look at the video you posted. At about 8 seconds it shows the receiver taking two steps with the ball in his hand and potentially escaping The tackle of the first osu player.

Also, the blow was to the shoulders and not the head or neck.

 

[PSUWrestlingFanSince2011]

I think you should take a look at the video you posted. At about 8 seconds it shows the receiver taking two steps with the ball in his hand and potentially escaping The tackle of the first osu player.

Also, the blow was to the shoulders and not the head or neck.

You must be a Buckeye fan

 

[dailybuck777]

You must be a Buckeye fan

I am a buckeye fan, but the receiver did take two steps before he was hit and he was hit in the shoulders. In another thread, I stated that I didn't think that OSU should be favored for Saturday's game because their offensive line is no good at this time after losing their left tackle.

 

[LandoComando]

I am a buckeye fan, but the receiver did take two steps before he was hit and he was hit in the shoulders. In another thread, I stated that I didn't think that OSU should be favored for Saturday's game because their offensive line is no good at this time after losing their left tackle.

I think it's questionable if he "took two steps" and "was hit in the shoulders" but I don't think it's as clear as everyone else seems to be making it either.

 

[The Spin Meister]

I think you should take a look at the video you posted. At about 8 seconds it shows the receiver taking two steps with the ball in his hand and potentially escaping The tackle of the first osu player.

Also, the blow was to the shoulders and not the head or neck.

Then it should have been ruled a fumble. Can’t have it both ways.

Either he was still a receiver and it was an incomplete pass or he was advancing the ball and it was a fumble.

But they never even considered it being a fumble…. proving he was still a receiver in the process of making a catch.

 

[dailybuck777]

Then it should have been ruled a fumble. Can’t have it both ways.

Either he was still a receiver and it was an incomplete pass or he was advancing the ball and it was a fumble.

But they never even considered it being a fumble…. proving he was still a receiver in the process of making a catch.

The video I posted commented that it was a fumble and that it would have ended the game but for the targeting call.

 

[The Spin Meister]

The video I posted commented that it was a fumble and that it would have ended the game but for the targeting call.

By the announcers. Officials didn’t consider it to our knowledge.

 

[Obliviax]

 

[dailybuck777]

By the announcers. Officials didn’t consider it to our knowledge.

Assuming your point of view that there was targeting, it is hard to imagine that targeting that causes a fumble would result in the fumble being upheld and at the same time a player would be ejected for an illegal hit.

 

[LandoComando]

Reese is playing--we can hate the decision all we want but that's that. He's playing
So, good--no excuse for Ohio State--may the best team win

 

[dailybuck777]

Reese is playing--we can hate the decision all we want but that's that. He's playing
So, good--no excuse for Ohio State--may the best team win

Reese is a very good player, but he is second string. I agree with your sentiments though.

 

[Nbergbuck]

Reese is playing--we can hate the decision all we want but that's that. He's playing
So, good--no excuse for Ohio State--may the best team win

Agreed. Actually, the loss of the starting LT is a far bigger loss than losing Reese (a LB) would have been. But that is football Unfortunately, injuries are a big part of the game. Look at Allar. I hope that he can play. May the better team win.

 

[NoBareFeet]

My favorite targeting call was the one against Michigan where Brandon Smith was flagged and ejected for trying to intercept a pass.

 

[mydome88]

The worst targeting call ever happened to PSU against Michigan when our LB was going for an interception…I don’t recall that being reversed. In this case, the call was made, replay upheld it….it should not have been reversed days later and it wouldn’t have been for teams other than OSU and Michigan…that’s the point, not whether it was a good call or not.

Never overturned

Yes, we had no LBs going into the game so it was a good spot for the refs to insert some influence.

 

[mydome88]

The announcers didn't think it was clearly obvious, the officials on the field did not, the replay officials also did not. I'm sure there is nothing going on behind the scenes that some schmuck coordinator of officials is the one genius (besides the bucknuts posting here) that believe it was clearly obvious....

If a player is ejected for targeting in the second half of the game, they and their conference can appeal it to the national coordinator of football officials, who would then review it. Per the rulebook:

“Based on the review, if and only if the national coordinator concludes that is is clearly obvious the player should not have been disqualified, the suspension will be vacated. If the national coordinator supports the disqualification, the suspension for the next game will remain.”

 

[psuno1]

Except one could say that in 2014, OSU didn’t deserve to make the playoffs in the first place….considering many other teams would t have had they been in the same scenario.

Getting two BS calls vs PSU that year as well, No Interception of Hack 110,000 people saw it but somehow the feed went down to the replay booth, and no 5 yard penalty on the clock running out on a 47 yard field goal.