Smith Targeting Call

[psu7981]

I have read some of the exchanges on the Smith targeting discussion in another thread. Can we just agree that the Smith call was the worst call and review of all time? As I have watched Penn State games in the B10 over the years, all I can think is "Let's move on to the ACC". There is no respect for Penn State in the B10.

"The Grand Experiment" (the second one) of joining the B10 was Joe's biggest mistake.

Sandy - Let's start our exit from the B10. I'm tired of being the unwanted member!

 

[LionDeNittany]

I have read some of the exchanges on the Smith targeting discussion in another thread. Can we just agree that the Smith call was the worst call and review of all time? As I have watched Penn State games in the B10 over the years, all I can think is "Let's move on to the ACC". There is no respect for Penn State in the B10.

"The Grand Experiment" (the second one) of joining the B10 was Joe's biggest mistake.

Sandy - Let's start our exit from the B10. I'm tired of being the unwanted member!

It is too late to move to the ACC and the Big Ten has greased the hands that matter.

LdN

 

[Westcoast24]

I have read some of the exchanges on the Smith targeting discussion in another thread. Can we just agree that the Smith call was the worst call and review of all time? As I have watched Penn State games in the B10 over the years, all I can think is "Let's move on to the ACC". There is no respect for Penn State in the B10.

"The Grand Experiment" (the second one) of joining the B10 was Joe's biggest mistake.

Sandy - Let's start our exit from the B10. I'm tired of being the unwanted member!

It was a horrible call which 99.9% of every poster has stated. It sucked

 

[Bob78]

I have read some of the exchanges on the Smith targeting discussion in another thread. Can we just agree that the Smith call was the worst call and review of all time? As I have watched Penn State games in the B10 over the years, all I can think is "Let's move on to the ACC". There is no respect for Penn State in the B10.

"The Grand Experiment" (the second one) of joining the B10 was Joe's biggest mistake.

Sandy - Let's start our exit from the B10. I'm tired of being the unwanted member!

At the very least, the volume of controversy caused by that call will lead to discussions in the off-season about how those calls need to be handled.... more focus on intent, more referee judgment (gaak!), something. Something needs to be done about those calls. Some are legit targeting but too many are not and still are called.... or not called. Common sense and consistency is what we need.

As for Joe and the Big Ten.... I think Joe, being a genuine and sincere and honorable man, simply always expected that of others and went so far as to assume it in many people he dealt with. These people sometimes turned out to not be as genuine and sincere and honorable and Joe did not foresee how his assumptions about those qualities in others would at times come back to haunt him, at times very unfairly. The Big Ten's treatment of PSU from the start continues to be one example. No doubt we can all think of at least one more.

 

[doctorcowboy49]

At the very least, the volume of controversy caused by that call will lead to discussions in the off-season about how those calls need to be handled.... more focus on intent, more referee judgment (gaak!), something. Something needs to be done about those calls. Some are legit targeting but too many are not and still are called.... or not called. Common sense and consistency is what we need.

As for Joe and the Big Ten.... I think Joe, being a genuine and sincere and honorable man, simply always expected that of others and went so far as to assume it in many people he dealt with. These people sometimes turned out to not be as genuine and sincere and honorable and Joe did not foresee how his assumptions about those qualities in others would at times come back to haunt him, at times very unfairly. The Big Ten's treatment of PSU from the start continues to be one example. No doubt we can all think of at least one more.

The call was horrible, but how has the Big Ten mistreated Penn State?

 

[Bobpsu]

The call was horrible, but how has the Big Ten mistreated Penn State?

Go back to your shithole!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I have read some of the exchanges on the Smith targeting discussion in another thread. Can we just agree that the Smith call was the worst call and review of all time? As I have watched Penn State games in the B10 over the years, all I can think is "Let's move on to the ACC". There is no respect for Penn State in the B10.

"The Grand Experiment" (the second one) of joining the B10 was Joe's biggest mistake.

Sandy - Let's start our exit from the B10. I'm tired of being the unwanted member!

The Smith call is the only call I have ever seen in college football or any conference where a defensive player was penalized under the Targeting Rule despite the defender not "targeting" an offensive player whatsoever as per the very Targeting Rule's fundamental definition - " 'Targeting' means that a player takes aim at an opponent" - Smith clearly was "targeting" the ball, not the receiver. Not only that, but in the second half of the sentence, the Targeting Rule specifically states that inadvertent contact resulting from "PLAYING THE BALL" is not "targeting" and should not be penalized under the Targeting Rule.

“Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Have NEVER seen a Targeting Flag on a defender in pass coverage who did not even "target" the intended pass receiver as per the Targeting Rule itself (i.e., "Targeting means that a player takes aim at an opponent..." - Smith clearly was "targeting" the ball, not the receiver) until this past Saturday when the b1g shizhole clowns not only made the ridiculous call, but then upheld and "Confirmed" the call via Replay Review despite the call being explicitly and clearly EXCLUDED from the Targeting Rule in two separate places within the Targeting Rule itself!

 

[doctorcowboy49]

Go back to your shithole!

Well, that was quite the thoughtful response. Not sure why that question would elicit anger. Across all sports but men's basketball, Penn State has had a ton of success in the Big Ten. Just curious as to why you would think PSU was been mistreated?

 

[chrisrn1965]

The call was horrible, but how has the Big Ten mistreated Penn State?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your question is sincere. Here are a few reasons people feel this way:

1. Penn State was not warmly welcomed. Many ADs, presidents, and coaches made it clear that they did not want us when we joined.
2. Multiple horrendous calls in football games against both Michigan and OSU. (time added back to clock, one hop receptions and interceptions, penalty for our crowd being too loud when Michigan offense was on the field. Field goal kicked 5 seconds after play clock expired etc.)
3. After the Sandusky mess and the illegal NCAA sanctions the BIG piled on by taking our bowl revenue. When Ohio State was out of bowl for tattoo-gate they still got their share of bowl revenue.
4. Immediately after the Sandusky stuff happened one of our players complained to a ref about being held. He was told "you are lucky that you are allowed to play". Nice unbiased response from the official.

I am sure others could add more to this list but I think that you get the point.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Here a photo of the hit that resulted in a non-call in the 'Furd-UCLA game. Pretty rugged looking.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

The call was horrible, but how has the Big Ten mistreated Penn State?

LOL

 

[BobPSU92]

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your question is sincere. Here are a few reasons people feel this way:

1. Penn State was not warmly welcomed. Many ADs, presidents, and coaches made it clear that they did not want us when we joined.
2. Multiple horrendous calls in football games against both Michigan and OSU. (time added back to clock, one hop receptions and interceptions, penalty for our crowd being too loud when Michigan offense was on the field. Field goal kicked 5 seconds after play clock expired etc.)
3. After the Sandusky mess and the illegal NCAA sanctions the BIG piled on by taking our bowl revenue. When Ohio State was out of bowl for tattoo-gate they still got their share of bowl revenue.
4. Immediately after the Sandusky stuff happened one of our players complained to a ref about being held. He was told "you are lucky that you are allowed to play". Nice unbiased response from the official.

I am sure others could add more to this list but I think that you get the point.

An important addendum to your Point #3:

The ncaa's illegal sanctions against Penn State included a four-year bowl ban, meaning four years of no bowl games and no bowl revenue. When the sanctions were "reversed", meaning the ncaa admitted they were wrong for sanctioning Penn State, the b1g never paid Penn State the bowl revenue lost in 2012 and 2013.

Another important point relates to Tosu's "tattoogate". The scandal at Tosu came out before Tosu's Sugar Bowl game against Arkansas. That scandal included proof that tressel lied as to when he knew that his players, including key starters, had broken ncaa rules. He knew before the season started yet ignored it and played these players throughout the season. The b1g decided to suspend Tosu's players starting with the next regular season's games. delany said that it was not fair to fans who had already bought their Sugar Bowl tickets to suspend these players for the bowl game.

 

[Lions8286]

penalty for our crowd being too loud when Michigan offense was on the field.

With all due respect, because I agree with pretty much everything, there was no penalty there. This has grown into a bit of an urban myth over the years.

 

[OldTiredLion]

"...worst call and review of all time..."

There have been many but this one would probably get my vote...

 

[Lions8286]

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20150930/COLLEGEVARSITY/150939934

"...Joe Paterno ran onto the field at Beaver Stadium trying to quiet the crowd. Penn State had lost two timeouts and been assessed a penalty because of crowd noise against Michigan.

In 1993, quarterbacks were allowed to back off from center if teammates couldn’t hear the call. If the noise persisted, the home team was penalized...."

A few years ago I linked an article from either the Daily Collegian or CDT from the actual game, written the following day. I can't find it any more, but it spelled out the situation pretty clearly. I believe there was a warning (which was still BS) but there was no penalty.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It was right up there with the James NO TD as the ball is over the line at NEB. Even with replay the B!G loves to screw things up.

 

[BarryPSU]

It was a horrible call which 99.9% of every poster has stated. It sucked

What really sucked more than the call itself (as terrible as it was) was the support from the replay booth backing up the call

 

[lionroar88]

Here a photo of the hit that resulted in a non-call in the 'Furd-UCLA game. Pretty rugged looking.

View embedded media

That photo doesn't prove anything. It is entirely possible their shoulders hit first (which is not a targeting penalty).

 

[Lion84]

It would be nice if the Big 10 would comment on calls after games and admit when they blow them - I think other conferences do.

 

[Lions8286]

I seem to recall that we did lose a time out. BUT having said that, it still should have been a non situation. Collins was complaining when he was running a no huddle, calling plays from the shotgun. The refs should have said..."if they can't hear you from the gun or the line of scrimmage, call the play in the huddle." We know why they didn't. The Michigan ref contingent was sympathetic and obliged just the way the same Big Ten crew did in South Bend in '88.

No question is a BS call. I just think the legend has grown over the years.

 

[royboy]

It would be nice if the Big 10 would comment on calls after games and admit when they blow them - I think other conferences do.

Agree. The ACC does, and will also suspend officials in some cases.

 

[kgilbert78]

It was a horrible call which 99.9% of every poster has stated. It sucked

That said, Franklin agreed with it. The problem is that the rule is so new they do not yet have any clue of how to be consistent with it. Mind you, I thought they blew it too. But refs differ in interpretations. Some are so by the book a hit to the head is always called. Others take into account (as they are supposed to do on this call) "intent". But "intent" is a slippery thing--and some refs want no part of it and will call it very black and white. Here's where word from the NCAA or league would help. I know that FIFA (soccer), for example, likes to send out photos and videos along with explanations when a rule change takes place. This would be a good example.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I seem to recall that we did lose a time out. BUT having said that, it still should have been a non situation. Collins was complaining when he was running a no huddle, calling plays from the shotgun. The refs should have said..."if they can't hear you from the gun or the line of scrimmage, call the play in the huddle." We know why they didn't. The Michigan ref contingent was sympathetic and obliged just the way the same Big Ten crew did in South Bend in '88.

How about the fumble return inside of the scUM 5-yard line after a QB sack that was waived off as an incomplete pass by the cheating b1g shizhole officials in that game??? Video clearly demonstrates that it was a clear fumble, the QB had brought the ball down and was not attempting a pass of any kind AND the ball went directly backwards at least 10 yards out of the QB's hands (which would have made it a backward pass, and a live ball, even if the homer b1g shizhole cheaters wanted to call it a "pass" which it wasn't!). Let me guess, this is all a "figment of my imagination" and "urban legend"??? Absolutely is not any such thing as I was there live and in person and watched the cheaters do this and everybody in the crowd that day (as well as the national TV audience) knows they blatantly cheated on that play to "protect" scUM who was down 10-0 at the time I believe and would have been down 17-0 but for the cheating activities of the b1g shizhole "officials".

 

[Pocono Lion]

That photo doesn't prove anything. It is entirely possible their shoulders hit first (which is not a targeting penalty).

Except they didn't. That hit was the poster child for targeting and they screwed it up twice.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

That said, Franklin agreed with it. The problem is that the rule is so new they do not yet have any clue of how to be consistent with it. Mind you, I thought they blew it too. But refs differ in interpretations. Some are so by the book a hit to the head is always called. Others take into account (as they are supposed to do on this call) "intent". But "intent" is a slippery thing--and some refs want no part of it and will call it very black and white. Here's where word from the NCAA or league would help. I know that FIFA (soccer), for example, likes to send out photos and videos along with explanations when a rule change takes place. This would be a good example.

First of all, Franklin did not even see the play on film when he made those comments. Secondly, you're full of $hit that it is a matter of "interpretation" whether that was a "Targeting Penalty" as the Targeting Penalty ITSELF EXPLICITLY STATES THAT WHAT #47 DID IS NOT A PENALTY!!! The following is excerpted directly from the top of the rule!:

“Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Smith was clearly and unequivocally "PLAYING THE BALL" and focused on the ball exclusively - Smith did not "take aim" at the receiver in any way, shape or form. You are completely full of it that there is any "interpretation" required in regards to whether what Smith did is a "Targeting Penalty" - the Targeting Penalty itself in very plain English states UNEQUIVOCALLY, PLAINLY AND FLATLY that what Smith did IS NOT A TARGETING PENALTY contrary to your claim that it was subject to "interpretation" of what the rule plainly states.

 

[psu00]

It would be nice if the Big 10 would comment on calls after games and admit when they blow them - I think other conferences do.

The big 12 announced the crew (and replay officials) that did the Oklahoma St vs Central Michigan (?) game Okie light lost were suspended for 2 weeks IIRC. I believe the ACC has announced suspensions in the past. The big ten doesn't appear to ever punish refs and they almost never answer questions about ref screw ups.

 

[bdgan]

I have read some of the exchanges on the Smith targeting discussion in another thread. Can we just agree that the Smith call was the worst call and review of all time? As I have watched Penn State games in the B10 over the years, all I can think is "Let's move on to the ACC". There is no respect for Penn State in the B10.

"The Grand Experiment" (the second one) of joining the B10 was Joe's biggest mistake.

Sandy - Let's start our exit from the B10. I'm tired of being the unwanted member!

Not the worst call of all time.

• PSU kept getting called for delay of game penalties against Michigan because the crowd was too loud.
• 2 seconds put back on the clock at Michigan
• Toe-heel
• Fumble after our TE crossed the goal line vs. Nebraska
• Tony Johnson catch vs. Michigan
• OSU interception of Hack that hit the ground but cameras didn't work
• OSU FG called good even though clock had been expired for 4 seconds

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

That said, Franklin agreed with it. The problem is that the rule is so new they do not yet have any clue of how to be consistent with it. Mind you, I thought they blew it too. But refs differ in interpretations. Some are so by the book a hit to the head is always called. Others take into account (as they are supposed to do on this call) "intent". But "intent" is a slippery thing--and some refs want no part of it and will call it very black and white. Here's where word from the NCAA or league would help. I know that FIFA (soccer), for example, likes to send out photos and videos along with explanations when a rule change takes place. This would be a good example.

Both the defensive and offensive players have equal rights to the ball once it is in the air. Anyone think targeting would have been called on Smith if Smith were the one on offense? He was clearly making a play on the ball. How does one "target" both the ball and a player that were traveling in opposite directions? It was nothing more than the tip of a shoulder pad incidentally making contact with a face mask, obviously causing the head to move. If that's a penalty, then every play has a slew of penalties.

When did Franklin say he agreed with the call? Was it on Saturday? Before carefully reviewing the replay? He might have said this publicly so as not to make waves, but I doubt if he agrees with it privately.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Both the defensive and offensive players have equal rights to the ball once it is in the air. Anyone think targeting would have been called on Smith if Smith were the one on offense? He was clearly making a play on the ball. How does one "target" both the ball and a player that were traveling in opposite directions? It was nothing more than the tip of a shoulder pad incidentally making contact with a face mask, obviously causing the head to move. If that's a penalty, then every play has a slew of penalties.

When did Franklin say he agreed with the call? Was it on Saturday? Before carefully reviewing the replay? He might have said this publicly so as not to make waves, but I doubt if he agrees with it privately.

He said it in the post-game PC based on his discussion with officials and without the benefit of having seen film on the play (or reading the rule as it is ACTUALLY WRITTEN - i.e., not the bull$hit made-up nonsense bull$hit that the b1g shizhole hacks spout on the sidelines!). The Rule itself very CLEARLY states exactly what you say - i.e., incidental contact that happens as a result of "PLAYING THE BALL" is NOT "targeting" and not applicable to the Targeting Rule! (The Rule also starts out with a statement that "Targeting" requires the defender to specifically "take aim" at the offensive player which Smith clearly did not do because all of his actions, motions and central focus are involved with "taking aim" at the football and not the player in way, shape or form). IOW, the "Targeting Rule" as WRITTEN clearly and unequivocally STATES that what Smith did is NOT a "targeting penalty":

“Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

The Targeting Rule itself very clearly states that incidental contact that results from simply legally "PLAYING THE BALL" is NOT "targeting".

 

[lionroar88]

Except they didn't. That hit was the poster child for targeting and they screwed it up twice.

Pocono - I get that, but a 'photo' does not show the entire play. A video would have been more appropriate. That was my point.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Not the worst call of all time.

• PSU kept getting called for delay of game penalties against Michigan because the crowd was too loud.
• 2 seconds put back on the clock at Michigan
• Toe-heel
• Fumble after our TE crossed the goal line vs. Nebraska
• Tony Johnson catch vs. Michigan
• OSU interception of Hack that hit the ground but cameras didn't work
• OSU FG called good even though clock had been expired for 4 seconds

Assuming they are all equally putrid and all of them are DIAMTERICALLY AT VARIANCE with the way the applicable rule for the situation reads, then they are all "tied" for "worst call of all time", so the poster is technically correct....

 

[Obliviax]

That said, Franklin agreed with it. The problem is that the rule is so new they do not yet have any clue of how to be consistent with it. Mind you, I thought they blew it too. But refs differ in interpretations. Some are so by the book a hit to the head is always called. Others take into account (as they are supposed to do on this call) "intent". But "intent" is a slippery thing--and some refs want no part of it and will call it very black and white. Here's where word from the NCAA or league would help. I know that FIFA (soccer), for example, likes to send out photos and videos along with explanations when a rule change takes place. This would be a good example.

I don't think he "agreed with it." I think he was told what to think, with minimum review, and went with it. Remember his comments were right after the game and I am sure he didn't see the 40 replays on a good high def TV. But what is he gonna do? I mean, when Honig is calling a call against PSU a bad call, what else is there to say?

 

[Woodpecker]

Well, that was quite the thoughtful response. Not sure why that question would elicit anger. Across all sports but men's basketball, Penn State has had a ton of success in the Big Ten. Just curious as to why you would think PSU was been mistreated?

Sam? Sam Lickliter? Is that you?

 

[PennStateJoePaBlueWhiteNight69]

of all the agregis calls saturday against us that one was by FAR the worse. and theirs nothing we can do about it. can that particular team of refs be suspended for future games?

 

[Erial_Lion]

That photo doesn't prove anything. It is entirely possible their shoulders hit first (which is not a targeting penalty).

The receiver was no longer a "defenseless" player at the time of the hit, which gave the defensive player a little more leeway with his hit. Still could have been called since it looked like he was leading with the crown of the helmet (or at least closer to the crown than to the facemask), however it was a bit different situation than the call that they missed in our game.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The receiver was no longer a "defenseless" player at the time of the hit, which gave the defensive player a little more leeway with his hit. Still could have been called since it looked like he was leading with the crown of the helmet (or at least closer to the crown than to the facemask), however it was a bit different situation than the call that they missed in our game.

Well at least the offensive player in that situation was being targeted for a hit as defined in the first sentence of the rule: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent...". On the Smith call, no offensive player was even targeted as per the rule's specification and definition as Smith was clearly "taking aim" at a live free ball attempting to intercept it with 100% of his movements and actions (i.e., he was "playing the ball") and never remotely "took aim" at any offensive player with his actions and movements - that is beyond crystal clear on all of the videos (i.e., the contact between Smith's right shoulder pad and the receiver's facemask is a clearly incidental contact resulting from Smith "Playing" a live ball, not "taking aim" at the receiver. The contact is very much "glancing" contact and is 100% the receiver bringing his head into contact with Smith's side than Smith attempting to make contact with the receiver).

 

[PennStateJoePaBlueWhiteNight69]

Well at least the offensive player in that situation was being targeted for a hit as defined in the first sentence of the rule: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent...". On the Smith call, no offensive player was even targeted as per the rule's specification and definition as Smith was clearly "taking aim" at a live free ball attempting to intercept it with 100% of his movements and actions (i.e., he was "playing the ball") and never remotely "took aim" at any offensive player with his actions and movements - that is beyond crystal clear on all of the videos (i.e., the contact between Smith's right shoulder pad and the receiver's facemask is a clearly incidental contact resulting from Smith "Playing" a live ball, not "taking aim" at the receiver. The contact is very much "glancing" contact and is 100% the receiver bringing his head into contact with Smith's side than Smith attempting to make contact with the receiver).

exactly this. their was not even a lick of targeting because he was playing the ball. not even going for a big hit. this might of been the worst of all the bad targeting calls.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

exactly this. their was not even a lick of targeting because he was playing the ball. not even going for a big hit. this might of been the worst of all the bad targeting calls.

It is the only "Targeting Call" I have ever seen at any level that absolutely in no way involved "targeting" as per the specification of, and definition within, the rule itself (i.e., the first REQUIREMENT of the rule itself is that the offensive player be the SUBJECT of the defender's actions - i.e., "Targeting" means the player TAKES AIM at an opponent...). I watch more Major CFB than NFL.....I watch a lot of Major College Football every week and I have never seen a "Targeting Flag" on a play where the offensive player was not even the SUBJECT or FOCUS of the defensive players actions! As per the rule itself, it can't be "targeting" if the defensive player does not even "take aim" at the offensive player and is merely "PLAYING THE BALL" - verbatim from two separate parts of the first sentence of the rule:

“Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Which is a point I have raised several times - not only was it a completely made up bull$hit call, but the "proof of the pudding" is that the only time I have seen a flag thrown where an offensive player is clearly not even the subject of a "targeting" hit as per The Rules own specifications and definitions was this past Saturday in a b1g shizhole game against PSU on a call that extended a scUM drive after a FAILED 3rd-&-4 play (giving them a 1st-&-Goal) EARLY IN THE GAME - go freaking figure!?1? Who 'da thunk it.....LMFAO. ONLY TIME EVER that I've seen a "targeting flag" on a play where the offensive player wasn't even the SUBJECT or "target" of the defensive player's actions or movements and go figure it was on a FAILED scUM 3rd-&-4 play early in the game that gave them a 1st-&-Goal! Wow, what a "coinky-dink"!

 

[Obliviax]

Looks like the B1G admitted it was wrong....

"Targeting occurs when a player takes aim at an opponent, whether the crown of the helmet is used to make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent, or whether there is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent that goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block, or playing the ball," the statement read.

"In this particular play, the defender was making a legitimate attempt to get to the ball and, upon full review, the call of Targeting should have been reversed by the Replay Official."

 

[kgilbert78]

Good for them. Doesn't help us any, of course....


Feels like what MLS did for the Crew this year. We had not one, not two, but THREE red cards rescinded this season. One of them was first given to the wrong player.

Of course that was after the games--and may have affected if they make the playoffs or not. Cost us at least 4 points and maybe 6.