Jump to content

Demarvion Overshown makes plays


zork

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The actual refs on the field didn't throw a flag. So, you're wrong. 

The problem is that a bunch of people, including apparently replay officials, don't understand how the rule works. They think that because one of the indications of targeting exists that defacto that means there was targeting. But that isn't the rule. You can actually have an indication of targeting against a defenseless player and still not have a targeting penalty if it is clear that there was no intention "of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." While there is a presumption of targeting built into the rules ("When in question, it is a foul"), that can be overcome. 

That's just completely wrong. Intent has nothing to do with targeting, they've made that clear over and over. Any indication of targeting against a defenseless player is by rule targeting period. As the officials like to quote - "the results of targeting don't care if there was intent or not".

Edited by MonkeyDoughnut
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

No they wouldn't.....if that was the case then why the fuck didn't the official on the field call the penalty? Another dumbass take from you.

because now that targeting is reviewable when a penalty is not called, they can just wait and say if booth doesn't call it then it isn't targeting.

It was helmet to helmet and the QB is in the pocket.  just because the facemask is part of the helmet by rule.  forcible is in the eye of the beholder.  we have a rule because we must save people from literally dying. no helmets must strike each other(except for RB's and OL/DL which happens 70 times a game) or people will die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

because now that targeting is reviewable when a penalty is not called, they can just wait and say if booth doesn't call it then it isn't targeting.

It was helmet to helmet and the QB is in the pocket.  just because the facemask is part of the helmet by rule.  forcible is in the eye of the beholder.  we have a rule because we must save people from literally dying. no helmets must strike each other(except for RB's and OL/DL which happens 70 times a game) or people will die.

it wasn't forcible contact, so therefore not a penalty.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The actual refs on the field didn't throw a flag. So, you're wrong. 

The problem is that a bunch of people, including apparently replay officials, don't understand how the rule works. They think that because one of the indications of targeting exists that defacto that means there was targeting. But that isn't the rule. You can actually have an indication of targeting against a defenseless player and still not have a targeting penalty if it is clear that there was no intention "of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." While there is a presumption of targeting built into the rules ("When in question, it is a foul"), that can be overcome. 

He may be wrong, but this winter he’ll be donning hoodies from Ross and Yankees beanies. So he’s doubly wrong and should be roundly ridiculed and probably flogged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

are you the arbiter of "forcible"?  no. the Big 12 replay guys are. I mean the UTSA QB could die from hits like that.  Its been shown(no pun).

Look at the body language in the replay of the game after he left the booth, he was disgusted b y the booths opinion too. The fools in the booth aren't right here and you're fucking retarded for thinking they are. He didn't die from it so stfu with you're stupid ass fucking argument.

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Look at the body language in the replay of the game after he left the booth, he was disgusted b y the booths opinion too. The fools in the booth aren't right here and you're fucking retarded for thinking they are. He didn't die from it so stfu with you're stupid ass fucking argument.

people will die.  didn't you see the movie which proved it?

Edited by dcar00
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pacman said:

That defenseless rule for targeting sure fits the hit on Ewers by Alabama. Believe all we got was a personal foul.

 

It wasn't targeting though... that's the big issue with targeting vs unnecessary roughness, the penalties don't line up even remotely.  If they would have given Overshown only an unnecessary roughness penalty it still would have been wrong in my view due to how he was just making a face to face (not side/behind hit) wrap up tackle even turning so he hits the ground and QB lands on top of him, but at least he wouldn't have been ejected from that game and potentially 1st half of next game.  They have to introduce some level of judgement into the type of targeting with better levels or penalty. Crown of helmet - yeah your gone, incidental - penalty/possible ejection depending on degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

Is there news about the ref apology yet? He’s playing from snap 1, correct?

Lmao at thinking a group of big 12 refs will ever admit they made a mistake. Get ready to be without 0 for a half, because ref egos are more important than a kid getting to play in a game that he trains year-round for.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Lmao at thinking a group of big 12 refs will ever admit they made a mistake. Get ready to be without 0 for a half, because ref egos are more important than a kid getting to play in a game that he trains year-round for.

UTSA was not a B12 crew. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Slacks said:

face mask to face mask on a QB is going to get a targeting.

Pretend that's Quinn against not Overshown. You'd call it.

I hate it, but it's rule.

 

 

These targeting rules are getting out of control.  In ten years this is what football will look like.

mime GIF
 

and this will be called as targeting.  

Edited by stork642
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, dcar00 said:

people will die.  didn't you see the movie which proved it?

I can’t tell if this is hyperbole or not based on the fact that you hate every coach we have in most sports and almost all the coaches we’ve ever had lol. Having a hard on for something this odd wouldn’t be that big of a stretch. If you’re trolling, we’ll played. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

That's just completely wrong. Intent has nothing to do with targeting, they've made that clear over and over. Any indication of targeting against a defenseless player is by rule targeting period. As the officials like to quote - "the results of targeting don't care if there was intent or not".

I disagree. Maybe intent is the wrong word, but a mental element is built into the rules. 

There are two different ways targeting can occur:

-------------------------------

1) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

Elements: 

a. forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet; and

b. at least one indicator of targeting, which is where 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;

2) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (rule 9-1-4)

Elements:

a. forcible contact to the head or neck area of opponent

b. opponent is defenseless; and

c. at least one indicator of targeting, which is where 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

-------------------------------

Under either 1(b) or 2(c), targeting, by rule, is when a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or legal block or playing the ball. That implicates some form of intent (i.e., a purpose). The examples in the rule book are supposed to be situations where there is an indication a a player takes aim for purposes beyond making a legal play. Where officials get this wrong is that they believe any contact qualifies, when in fact, for instance, if it is clear that the contact to the head only occurred because of last second actions by the offensive player (e.g., ducking), then it shouldn't be targeting on the defender since it is clear the defender didn't have the purpose of making forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle. 

The reason intent often seems not to matter is that the rule also says that when in doubt, it is a foul (or, in other words, err on the side of calling a foul). But, if any element is clearly missing, then there is no foul. 

Btw, the emphasis on taking "aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking..." is also repeated in the NCAA Case Book (https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC22.pdf). 

Quote

Targeting is to take aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. For a targeting foul to be enforced and a player disqualified, all elements of targeting must be confirmed by the replay official.

 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No, what that is saying is that if the official on the field called roughing the passer, roughing the passer has to stand (because it isn't reviewable). 

Gotcha. Since on field official didn’t call anything but replay bc Allen targeting and by that rule it wasn’t targeting there should be no foul or ejection?

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Gotcha. Since on field official didn’t call anything but replay bc Allen targeting and by that rule it wasn’t targeting there should be no foul or ejection?

It should get overturned so that Overshown can play the full game on Saturday. Texas should send in the video and that exact section of the casebook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, holy shit, this exact fucking play is covered in the Casebook at page 73-74:

Seriously, by the fucking book, this was not targeting!

Great find. The Big 12 replay officials completely fucked us either intentionally or because they haven't read the rules. This is absurd. Honestly this finds needs to be published by Longhorn media immediately before the official ruling. THE RULE BOOK LITERALLY FUCKING SAYS THIS WAS NOT TARGETING. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Great find. The Big 12 replay officials completely fucked us either intentionally or because they haven't read the rules. This is absurd. Honestly this finds needs to be published by Longhorn media immediately before the official ruling. THE RULE BOOK LITERALLY FUCKING SAYS THIS WAS NOT TARGETING. 

It’s intentional 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Great find. The Big 12 replay officials completely fucked us either intentionally or because they haven't read the rules. This is absurd. Honestly this finds needs to be published by Longhorn media immediately before the official ruling. THE RULE BOOK LITERALLY FUCKING SAYS THIS WAS NOT TARGETING. 

Since I actually know nothing about Longhorn media, who should I send it to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

Lmao at thinking a group of big 12 refs will ever admit they made a mistake. Get ready to be without 0 for a half, because ref egos are more important than a kid getting to play in a game that he trains year-round for.

My understanding is that it was CUSA refs.  If so, there's a much better chance of it being overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, holy shit, this exact fucking play is covered in the Casebook at page 73-74:

Seriously, by the fucking book, this was not targeting!

Wish I could rep you more. If they don’t overturn the targeting call then it’s a deliberate fucking. The asshats tweeting about Overshown;s arrest yesterday damn well better tweet today about that section of the rule book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I disagree. Maybe intent is the wrong word, but a mental element is built into the rules. 

There are two different ways targeting can occur:

-------------------------------

1) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

Elements: 

a. forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet; and

b. at least one indicator of targeting, which is where 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;

2) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (rule 9-1-4)

Elements:

a. forcible contact to the head or neck area of opponent

b. opponent is defenseless; and

c. at least one indicator of targeting, which is where 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

-------------------------------

Under either 1(b) or 2(c), targeting, by rule, is when a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or legal block or playing the ball. That implicates some form of intent (i.e., a purpose). The examples in the rule book are supposed to be situations where there is an indication a a player takes aim for purposes beyond making a legal play. Where officials get this wrong is that they believe any contact qualifies, when in fact, for instance, if it is clear that the contact to the head only occurred because of last second actions by the offensive player (e.g., ducking), then it shouldn't be targeting on the defender since it is clear the defender didn't have the purpose of making forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle. 

The reason intent often seems not to matter is that the rule also says that when in doubt, it is a foul (or, in other words, err on the side of calling a foul). But, if any element is clearly missing, then there is no foul. 

Btw, the emphasis on taking "aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking..." is also repeated in the NCAA Case Book (https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC22.pdf). 

 

bullshit.

Intent has nothing to do with it.  If a tackler is aiming for the shoulder and the runner lowers his head just before the tackle and there is forceable 100% unintentional helmet to helmet contact, it is still targeting.  They are trying to change the way defenders tackle.  And Overshown did a classic perfect tackle.  It was not targeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...