Quick thought on the refs

[UPitt '89]

The on-field officials were incompetent, but I don't believe biased.

The replay official, however, was ridiculous. And I call into question his bias.

- On the Shocky TD. It was called a TD on the field. There is no objective viewing of the replay that could in any way be considered conclusive to overturn the call on the field. None.

- On the Hamlin targeting. If two people dive for a ball and their heads make contact, that is NOT targeting - not by any reading of the rule. Ball was thrown low and two players dove for it. Each is equally the "cause" of the head-to-head contact. It's an unfortunate accident, but it is in no way targeting.

Here's the NCAA targeting description. A play must clearly meet one of the following, or it is NOT targeting:

• Launch--a player leaving his 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 his helmet.

1. Did Hamlin "launch" to attack an opponent in and upward and forward thrust? No. He dove for the ball, not the receiver.

2. Did Hamlin "crouch followed by an upware and forward thrust"? Clearly no.

3. Did Hamlin "lead with helmet, should, forearm, fist, hand, or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"? Clearly, no. He dove for the ball.

4. Did Hamlin "lower his head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet"? No. Hamlin's head was up, looking at the ball he was trying to catch.


Hamlin's play met *NONE* of the requirements for targeting. Ejecting the player from the game for attempting to intercept a ball in which incidental contact between the players' heads occurred is an egregious error by the video replay judge.

The video replay judge is employed SOLELY by the ACC. The ACC is based in North Carolina, and it is clear that the video judge was attempting to impact the game in a way to help one team over the other. He had ZERO basis for overturning Shocky's TD. None. He had less than zero basis for upholding targeting on Hamlin.

 

[pittman71]

Your third bullet describes the Hamlin play

 

[PittFanDan17]

There was a witchhunt from the start of the game to screw us out of the win. It is clear that the ACC refs are against us, too bad we're too good and will be 9-3 after 2 more weeks

*shrugs*

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

well look at bright side, it happened in 2nd quarter and not 3rd so in short, it happened at the best possible time. we got a full half out of him and he doesn't have to sit next game's first half.

that's all i got. that overturn of the TD pass was insane. i objectively can say i saw NOTHING to overturn that.

 

[UPitt '89]

Your third bullet describes the Hamlin play

No, it doesn't.

He did not "lead with helmet, should, forearm, fist, hand, or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area".

First off, he didn't lead with his head - his hands were in front of his head, reaching for the ball.

The part in bold is important. He did not do it "to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area". He did it "to attempt to catch the ball".

Both players were equally the cause of the head-to-head contact, in that they were both diving to make a catch. It is clear that Hamlin's "target" was the ball, not the receiver. Incidental head-to-head contact when making a football play is *NOT* targeting, by definition.

 

[H2P 2003]

The targeting rule is terrible. I thought the watts hit was much more targeting than that.

The overturned TD was disgraceful.

 

[Pitt-Chains]

The targeting rule is terrible. I thought the watts hit was much more targeting than that.

The overturned TD was disgraceful.

PITT had two wins yesterday... one against NC and one against the officials...

 

[JohnnyGossamer]

I thought it was the worst officiated game since ND with Chryst here. It was outrageous. I couldn't believe it. I generally never talk about officiating like this... Almost seemed fixed.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

The ACC refs are beyond incompetent, its an absolute embarrassment. I would almost rather find out they are being paid off than believe they are this terrible.

 

[MajorMajors]

They need to add a “common sense” element to the targeting rule, as pie-in-the-sky as that sounds.

Common sense would say Hamlin’s play was not a foul at all, just playing the ball and the receiver got in the way.

Common sense would say Watt’s play was a foul and was blatant enough to warrant ejection from the game.

I think both sides would have accepted those outcomes.

Now the turnover of the Shocky TD pass is beyond all reason...

Go Pitt.

 

[bwh05]

the holding on the last UNC drive and in OT was atrocious too. We had guys getting pulled to the ground with nothing called.

 

[lilspainishflea]

the holding on the last UNC drive and in OT was atrocious too. We had guys getting pulled to the ground with nothing called.

Agree. Unreal holding and OPI as well. I'm not the type that needs either holding or every little OPI call made, but there has to be some level of consistency, especially with WR who are holding and/or pushing to either prevent a DB from intercepting the ball or to get a touchdown.

 

[upj87]

The on-field officials were incompetent, but I don't believe biased.

The replay official, however, was ridiculous. And I call into question his bias.

- On the Shocky TD. It was called a TD on the field. There is no objective viewing of the replay that could in any way be considered conclusive to overturn the call on the field. None.

- On the Hamlin targeting. If two people dive for a ball and their heads make contact, that is NOT targeting - not by any reading of the rule. Ball was thrown low and two players dove for it. Each is equally the "cause" of the head-to-head contact. It's an unfortunate accident, but it is in no way targeting.

Here's the NCAA targeting description. A play must clearly meet one of the following, or it is NOT targeting:

• Launch--a player leaving his 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 his helmet.

1. Did Hamlin "launch" to attack an opponent in and upward and forward thrust? No. He dove for the ball, not the receiver.

2. Did Hamlin "crouch followed by an upware and forward thrust"? Clearly no.

3. Did Hamlin "lead with helmet, should, forearm, fist, hand, or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"? Clearly, no. He dove for the ball.

4. Did Hamlin "lower his head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet"? No. Hamlin's head was up, looking at the ball he was trying to catch.


Hamlin's play met *NONE* of the requirements for targeting. Ejecting the player from the game for attempting to intercept a ball in which incidental contact between the players' heads occurred is an egregious error by the video replay judge.

The video replay judge is employed SOLELY by the ACC. The ACC is based in North Carolina, and it is clear that the video judge was attempting to impact the game in a way to help one team over the other. He had ZERO basis for overturning Shocky's TD. None. He had less than zero basis for upholding targeting on Hamlin.

Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.... is what he did.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

Your third bullet describes the Hamlin play

lol. yeah, pretty much perfect summation of what exactly happened with Hamlin..

pitt fans crying about this is weird since anyone that watches football has seen this call on this play a thousand times over and over on pretty much every game in college and nfl.. YOU CANT LEAD WITH YOUR HEAD. i mean, it's pretty clear guys. this isn't a new rule.

-

 

[UPitt '89]

Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.... is what he did.

The key part is "to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area". He led with his hands "to attempt to catch the ball"... that is clear in the video.

 

[UPitt '89]

He

lol. yeah, pretty much perfect summation of what exactly happened with Hamlin..

pitt fans crying about this is weird since anyone that watches football has seen this call on this play a thousand times over and over on pretty much every game in college and nfl.. YOU CANT LEAD WITH YOUR HEAD. i mean, it's pretty clear guys. this isn't a new rule.

-

He didn't lead with his head. He led with his hands, in an attempt to catch the ball. The heads made contact, but he did NOT "lead" with the head.

 

[upj87]

y

The key part is "to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area". He led with his hands "to attempt to catch the ball"... that is clear in the video.

uh, ya, I saw your bold...you hit a dude with your head you lead with your head...It is a bs rule but they apply it to the letter of the law...the is no "attempt to catch" clause in it...there is no common sense clause in it either...

The heads made contact, but he did NOT "lead" with the head.... Unless you are Underdog or something with your arms held back as you fly through the air everyone leads with their hands...

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

He

He didn't lead with his head. He led with his hands, in an attempt to catch the ball. The heads made contact, but he did NOT "lead" with the head.

we shall respectfully agree to disagree. but for anyone who wants to weigh in, go to the 11:18 mark..

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

He

He didn't lead with his head. He led with his hands, in an attempt to catch the ball. The heads made contact, but he did NOT "lead" with the head.

Helmet to helmet contact of a defenseless receiver.
It’s always a no brainer call

Accept this fact

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Helmet to helmet contact of a defenseless receiver.
It’s always a no brainer call

Accept this fact

For some reason people always want to try to figure out the players intent in situations like this, and as the rule is written intent basically doesn't have anything to do with it. He hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet. They don't care if he was trying to catch the ball or trying to hit him in the chest or trying to avoid contact all together. He hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet. That's all they care about.

As I said the last time, I think that the rule should include some element of intent. Two guys going for the ball, the contact is incidental, no penalty. But that's not what the rule says. That's not the way the rule has been interpreted for several years now.

Defenseless receiver, helmet to helmet hit, targeting. It really is as simple as that.

 

[cjrugger]

You guys are honestly complaining about targeting calls??

 

[lilspainishflea]

You guys are honestly complaining about targeting calls??

View embedded media

Yes. And numerous posters in here said this one was called incorrectly, too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You guys are honestly complaining about targeting calls??

That was absolutely, 100% targeting. It is mind-boggling that they reversed that call on replay.

And if the replay official wasn't your typical Carolina school hating ACC official it would have been called that way.

 

[UPitt '89]

Helmet to helmet contact of a defenseless receiver.
It’s always a no brainer call

Accept this fact

Always a no brainer? Why wasn't Watt ejected then?

He had helmet-to-helmet contact in the first quarter... it was called on the field... and then OVERTURNED. Why? His contact was actually more egregious, because he led with the head AND was late.

Hamlin led with his hands in an attempt to dive and catch the ball. The helmet contact was incidental, and there are MANY cases where it is overturned in that case.

 

[UPitt '89]

You guys are honestly complaining about targeting calls??

View embedded media

That should've been called. It *WAS* targeting. Watt should've been ejected.


Hamlin's wasn't. It was incidental helmet contact between two players *BOTH* diving for the ball. Each player was equally the cause of the helmet contact.

 

[UPitt '89]

For some reason people always want to try to figure out the players intent in situations like this, and as the rule is written intent basically doesn't have anything to do with it. He hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet. They don't care if he was trying to catch the ball or trying to hit him in the chest or trying to avoid contact all together. He hit a defenseless receiver helmet to helmet. That's all they care about.

As I said the last time, I think that the rule should include some element of intent. Two guys going for the ball, the contact is incidental, no penalty. But that's not what the rule says. That's not the way the rule has been interpreted for several years now.

Defenseless receiver, helmet to helmet hit, targeting. It really is as simple as that.

If this were true, Watt would've been ejected too. His was clearly helmet-to-helmet and NOT incidental.

The fact that Watt's was *OVERTURNED* means that there is leeway for "intent" and that you are 100% incorrect.

In Hamlin's case... *BOTH* players were equally the cause of the helmet-to-helmet contact. They both dove for a ball and their heads collided. Hamlin was no more "at fault" than the UNC receiver.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The fact that Watt's was *OVERTURNED* means that there is leeway for "intent" and that you are 100% incorrect.

In Hamlin's case... *BOTH* players were equally the cause of the helmet-to-helmet contact. They both dove for a ball and their heads collided. Hamlin was no more "at fault" than the UNC receiver.

That first sentence is absolutely incorrect. The fact that the Watt call was overturned isn't proof that the rule allows for intent, it's proof of the fact that sometimes the replay refs screw up a call, and sometimes we are the beneficiaries of that screw up.

Hamlin was more at fault than the North Carolina player because the North Carolina player was the receiver and Hamlin was the defender. The North Carolina player, by the definition of the term, was a defenseless player. Hamlin was not. You or I might not like that that's the way the rule is, but that's the way the rule is. The receiver trying to catch the ball is by definition the defenseless player. The defender trying to stop the receiver is by definition NOT the defenseless player. And that makes all the difference in the world.

 

[UPitt '89]

Hamlin was more at fault than the North Carolina player because the North Carolina player was the receiver and Hamlin was the defender.

This sentence is 100% false.

According to NCAA rules, when a thrown ball is in the air, the offensive and defensive players have an *EQUAL* right to the ball. There is no preferential treatment for the offensive player in that instance. A defensive player can be going for a ball and be the "defenseless player" that is targeted by the offensive player.

When the ball is in the air, the offensive and defensive players equally have a right to dive for it. The fact that their helmets made contact as they BOTH dove for the ball makes neither (or both) of them the "defenseless" player in the scenario.


What the Watt call indicates is that the video review official *DOES* have discretion to overturn a call. So any statement that it is "cut and dried" or a "no brainer" is false. The whole point of the review is that it *CAN* be overturned by whatever mitigating factors the video review official deems.

There was a similar call in the Pitt-UVa game in which there was helmet to helmet contact between a Pitt defender and a UVa tight end. Refs on the field called it targeting... video review judge deemed the helmet-to-helmet contact equally the fault of the UVa and Pitt players.

The video review judge has leeway. This was literally proven on the Watt call. He had the leeway to overturn the Hamlin call too.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

This sentence is 100% false.

According to NCAA rules, when a thrown ball is in the air, the offensive and defensive players have an *EQUAL* right to the ball. There is no preferential treatment for the offensive player in that instance. A defensive player can be going for a ball and be the "defenseless player" that is targeted by the offensive player.

When the ball is in the air, the offensive and defensive players equally have a right to dive for it. The fact that their helmets made contact as they BOTH dove for the ball makes neither (or both) of them the "defenseless" player in the scenario.


What the Watt call indicates is that the video review official *DOES* have discretion to overturn a call. So any statement that it is "cut and dried" or a "no brainer" is false. The whole point of the review is that it *CAN* be overturned by whatever mitigating factors the video review official deems.

There was a similar call in the Pitt-UVa game in which there was helmet to helmet contact between a Pitt defender and a UVa tight end. Refs on the field called it targeting... video review judge deemed the helmet-to-helmet contact equally the fault of the UVa and Pitt players.

The video review judge has leeway. This was literally proven on the Watt call. He had the leeway to overturn the Hamlin call too.

The more and more you post on this topic the more and more evident it is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. When the ball is in the air the defensive player is in no way, shape or form considered to be defenseless. No way, no how. No matter how many times you keep saying it that still won't make it true. The receiver trying to catch the ball is, by definition, the defenseless player. The defender trying to stop the receiver is not defenseless. He just isn't. I simply cannot imagine how anyone can watch even a modest amount of football in 2019 and not understand something as basic as that.

 

[UPitt '89]

The more and more you post on this topic the more and more evident it is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. When the ball is in the air the defensive player is in no way, shape or form considered to be defenseless. No way, no how. No matter how many times you keep saying it that still won't make it true. The receiver trying to catch the ball is, by definition, the defenseless player. The defender trying to stop the receiver is not defenseless. He just isn't. I simply cannot imagine how anyone can watch even a modest amount of football in 2019 and not understand something as basic as that.

The targeting rule makes no reference to offensive v defensive players. An offensive player can be called for targeting, and it has happened (though rarer than a defensive player). If a ball is in the air, and the defensive player has a bead on it, an offensive player can definitely commit a targeting infraction.

This sentence by you:

"The receiver trying to catch the ball is, by definition, the defenseless player."

Is patently, 100%, absolutely, without a doubt, false. The NCAA makes it clear that *ANY* player can be the "defenseless player" on a thrown ball, and literally makes NO reference in the targeting rule as to whether a player is on offense or defense. *ANY* player making a play on a ball can be deemed the "defenseless" player, not just the offensive player.

Example, but certainly not the only one: QB throws a ball that is tipped or slips out of his hand and a defensive player is headed for it and dives to make the catch.... while an offensive player dives at that player head first to break up the interception. The offensive player would be called for targeting.


FINALLY.... video review judges have discretion to overturn a targeting call. They have done so hundreds of times across the NCAA this year .... and earlier in this very game. I simply cannot imagine how anyone can watch even a modest amount of football in 2019 and not understand something as basic as that.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

The rule, and the interpretation of the rule, sucks.

The Watts play was a cheap shot and targeting. He should have been thrown out of the game.

I hate the Hamlin call. I hated the Ford call.

I won't argue the technicalities of the rule and what happened, but any rule that allows Watts' play to be overturned, and Hamlin and Ford to be ejected, is just a bad rule that isn't being enforced correctly.

This happens every week, in multiple games. There is no consistency, and nobody knows what may or may not be called targeting.

 

[PittInMissouri]

Agree. Unreal holding and OPI as well. I'm not the type that needs either holding or every little OPI call made, but there has to be some level of consistency, especially with WR who are holding and/or pushing to either prevent a DB from intercepting the ball or to get a touchdown.

I thought to myself "Great form on those tackles the NC OL were doing"

 

[Panther_in_Kentucky]

The ACC refs are beyond incompetent, its an absolute embarrassment. I would almost rather find out they are being paid off than believe they are this terrible.

It only takes 1 official, in a key position, to influence the outcome of a game. In this game it was clearly the Back Judge. Bogus PI calls, Defensive Holding on 3rd & 23, Targeting call when Hamlin is diving for an interception with hands out, palms up. Seriously ridiculously BAD calls.

The ACC and their "Tobacco Road" influence clearly wanted UNC to win this game. Probably because they want UNC in a bowl game badly? I feel sorry for UNC's next opponent. They are really going to be screwed over by the refs.

 

[gary2]

That first sentence is absolutely incorrect. The fact that the Watt call was overturned isn't proof that the rule allows for intent, it's proof of the fact that sometimes the replay refs screw up a call, and sometimes we are the beneficiaries of that screw up.

Hamlin was more at fault than the North Carolina player because the North Carolina player was the receiver and Hamlin was the defender. The North Carolina player, by the definition of the term, was a defenseless player. Hamlin was not. You or I might not like that that's the way the rule is, but that's the way the rule is. The receiver trying to catch the ball is by definition the defenseless player. The defender trying to stop the receiver is by definition NOT the defenseless player. And that makes all the difference in the world.

Hamlin was more likely the receiver there than the UNC player. Hamlin had a much higher probability of catching the ball.

 

[gary2]

It only takes 1 official, in a key position, to influence the outcome of a game. In this game it was clearly the Back Judge. Bogus PI calls, Defensive Holding on 3rd & 23, Targeting call when Hamlin is diving for an interception with hands out, palms up. Seriously ridiculously BAD calls.

The ACC and their "Tobacco Road" influence clearly wanted UNC to win this game. Probably because they want UNC in a bowl game badly? I feel sorry for UNC's next opponent. They are really going to be screwed over by the refs.

Not to worry. I think they are playing Mercer next.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

lol. yeah, pretty much perfect summation of what exactly happened with Hamlin..

pitt fans crying about this is weird since anyone that watches football has seen this call on this play a thousand times over and over on pretty much every game in college and nfl.. YOU CANT LEAD WITH YOUR HEAD. i mean, it's pretty clear guys. this isn't a new rule.

-

If you’re diving for a ball, what can you lead with? If you dive into a pool, what cab you lead with? Just asking.

 

[pittbb80]

There was a non call that was reviewed in the OUBaylor game last night. It was far worse than Hankins

while the wording of the rule may be clear the interpretation by officials is incredibly inconsistent. There are many other examples including Watts which was far worse than Hankins

If you were to put together all of the calls and non calls this year there would be no clear definition of what targeting is or isn’t based on how it’s called