Is anyone watching the College Football Playoff? Who wins tonight and tomorrow? Happy New Year everyone.

[Paul158]

I have Penn State tonight. Tomorrow, I have Texas, Ohio State and Georgia. Hopefully net year they will seed the bracket properly. The Buckeyes and the Ducks should be a great game.

[Ohio Elite]

So far so good!!

[mspart]

Ducks are getting blown out in the first half.    Last I saw 34-0.   The commentators said Ducks have not been past the 50 yard line yet.   Getting totally owned. 

mspart

[mspart]

TX ASU game was a nail biter.  TX won but really, honestly they shouldn't have.   They were out offensed, but ASU couldn't finish the job about 4 or 5 times.   TX defense was outstanding.

mspart

[Husker_Du]

ASU blew it imo. full out blitz on 4th and 13 that would have iced the game.

good ball game though. 

idc who wins tOSU-ORE but i'm hoping it gets at least mildly interesting in the second half.

[Husker_Du]

also - i'm from PA so maybe a tick of bias but i think PSU can play with ND or GEO

[Tripnsweep]

Nice no call on an obvious targeting when ASU would have been able to win in regulation. 

[PortaJohn]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

also - i'm from PA so maybe a tick of bias but i think PSU can play with ND or GEO

They absolutely can.  

[ionel]

2 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

Nice no call on an obvious targeting when ASU would have been able to win in regulation. 

If that wasn't targeting then there is no such thing as targeting.  Slightly lowered his helmet and hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet knocking him out.  

[PortaJohn]

3 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

Nice no call on an obvious targeting when ASU would have been able to win in regulation. 

 

58 minutes ago, ionel said:

If that wasn't targeting then there is no such thing as targeting.  Slightly lowered his helmet and hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet knocking him out.  

They stayed consistent with the no call after not calling it on the interception 

[ionel]

20 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

 

They stayed consistent with the no call after not calling it on the interception 

Wasn't helmet to helmet on the interception and no one was knocked out.

[Husker_Du]

 

[Tripnsweep]

"I don't know what targeting is."

[mspart]

apparently the refs don't know either.

mspart

[Paul158]

I wonder who the person was that reviewed the targeting call? Can we get a name and what his credentials are. If that call is properly made ASU would have a first down on the 35. They had a lot of momentum and had a chance to win the game in regulation. So, the player that got knocked out from the hit has to go into concussion protocol his day is over (his career could be over). The idiot that hit him gets to continue to play IN THIS GAME AND THE NEXT GAME.I believe targeting should be a 50,000 dollar fine and a 3 game suspension. 

[Tripnsweep]

Even if ASU did kick a field goal, there may have been enough time left for Texas to come back and tie or win. So you can't say for sure ASU would have won, but they definitely would have been in a very good position to do so in regulation. The non call could have definitely changed the game, but it at least gives some intrigue as to what might have been. 

[PortaJohn]

10 hours ago, ionel said:

Wasn't helmet to helmet on the interception and no one was knocked out.

It doesn't have to be helmet to helmet.  He led with his forearm.  Hit him in the head.  By definition of the rule book that is targeting

[PortaJohn]

Below is the rule book for targeting in College Football.  Kudos to the refs for not calling it after they didn't call it on the Bond interception targeting hit.  They kept it consistent.  

ARTICLE 4 No player shall target and make forcible 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).

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 or 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

Edited January 2 by PortaJohn

[Paul158]

25 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

It doesn't have to be helmet to helmet.  He led with his forearm.  Hit him in the head.  By definition of the rule book that is targeting

So you are saying they both should have been called targeting. Regardless how they called the first incident the second one was still targeting. Just because you screwup a call doesn't mean you screw up the second call intentionally. With a 50,000 dollar fine and 3 game suspension all this goes away. I really dislike dirty players.

[Husker_Du]

he was defenseless and it was helmet to helmet.

i'm not big on the targeting rule (and disagree with the call 8/10 times) but if this aint targeting, what is? 

[Paul158]

1 minute ago, Husker_Du said:

he was defenseless and it was helmet to helmet.

i'm not big on the targeting rule (and disagree with the call 8/10 times) but if this aint targeting, what is? 

Maybe if you have a gun and you shoot the other player then that's targeting.

[PortaJohn]

3 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

So you are saying they both should have been called targeting. Regardless how they called the first incident the second one was still targeting. Just because you screwup a call doesn't mean you screw up the second call intentionally. With a 50,000 dollar fine and 3 game suspension all this goes away. I really dislike dirty players.

The  first one was clearer targeting than the second. They were consistent

[PortaJohn]

11 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

he was defenseless and it was helmet to helmet.

i'm not big on the targeting rule (and disagree with the call 8/10 times) but if this aint targeting, what is? 

If they weren't going to call this than they weren't going to call the latter.  GOOD JOB by the reviewers and refs for keeping it consistent

 

[Paul158]

2 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

The  first one was clearer targeting than the second. They were consistent

No one is even mentioning the incident you are talking about (other than you). The second incident is mentioned on every Tv network and on every website. It's being reported as the targeting call the referees screwed up. There must be a reason for that. 

[PortaJohn]

1 minute ago, Paul158 said:

No one is even mentioning the incident you are talking about (other than you). The second incident is mentioned on every Tv network and on every website. It's being reported as the targeting call the referees screwed up. There must be a reason for that. 

Theyre only mentioning it because they wanted Texas to lose.  I literally put the video up and it clearly shows a more credible targeting call vs the one everyone is being overly dramatic about