Momentum killers

The 4th down fail on the first drive followed by the ducks marching down field for 7 set the table for the whole damn game. They kicked ass on both lines and those drives fired up the ducks and deflated the Utes.

The other play I believe was huge was the no-call on the first targeting hit on Huntley. I would like to hear the explanation of that call. Huntley was in the grasp, defenseless and going down. The duck lowered his head and hit with the crown to side of Huntley’s head. If that wasn’t targeting, I have no understanding of the rule. I think the Utes may have gained some momentum if the duck had been ejected.

All said though, congratulations to Oregon. They played a great game.

It was called targeting in last year’s CCG. I think it was Blair drilling a RB.

1 Like

If the intent of the targeting rule is to protect players from helmet to helmet contact, particularly a defenseless one, that was targeting and how it’s been called for a couple of years in the PAC-12.

I don’t think the player did it intentionally thought, which is why I think they need a targeting and intentional targeting rule. One results in a 15 yard penalty with no ejection, the other gets ejected.

1 Like

The freak injury on Blackmon was a killer. Our secondary was out of place the rest of the night and the defensive leaders spent the rest of the night getting them in the right place before the ball was snapped. That was rough to see and Herbert picked on them all night long.

1 Like

In the stadium we couldn’t see how Blackmon went down. Obviously freakish in a play whistled dead for a false start. What happened? That was a huge loss.

The guy that targeted Huntley ended up being the player of the game.

He was just backpedaling and fell down and grabbed his knee. The announcers said he had a previous injury. Total freak thing.

1 Like

That particular Duck went on to become the defensive player of the game.

I think that’s a good idea. I’ve seen a couple flagrant calls this year that were not intentional and not particularly violent. Flagrant targeting deserves ejection.

I can’t help but wonder if Huntley had his ‘bell wrung’ - as they used to call a concussion. For the health and safety of the players and the good of the game, targeting hits like those inflicted on Huntley must be called - no matter the player or significance of the game.


I felt the same way on the first series. Getting the FD and a quick score would have scripted another narrative.
We play tough ball, but the no call seem to embolden them.


Both of the plays in the pac-12 championship game would have been targeting under the old rules. It would have been nice for us in that game, but the new rules this season have been so much better. Neither of those players deserved to be ejected for what they did. Neither deserved a 15 yard penalty either. Those were just football plays. The contact was not intentional at all.

1 Like

Both ‘targeting’ calls that weren’t I agreed with. On Huntley, you could see his head was to the side and he was leading with his shoulder. Unfortunately, Tyler put his head to same side so helmet to helmet was incidental. The other one, on Moss maybe cant remember, lacked launching.

I know everyone keeps saying he was leading with his shoulder, but that doesn’t matter anymore. The rule states 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. It was probably targeting, but not intentional. The rule needs degrees of severity.

1 Like

Can you copy and paste the current rule? Are you saying the 4 elements of targeting that was much quoted last season is no longer in effect? Its basically ANY forcible contact to head or neck? I guess I’m skeptical of that because otherwise there would be a LOT more targeting penalties called.

Seems to me we’ve seen far fewer targeting calls this season. Last year it was like there was a mandate the Pac-12 officials must eject a player in every game. The call against Chase Hansen in Boulder made me as angry as any call made against a Ute since Paul Afeaki was whistled for fouling LaPhonso Ellis in the last seconds of the NIT semi against Norte Dame back in the early 90s.

I do feel as others have mentioned they need to have 2 levels of targeting. One that is just 15 yards (and perhaps the ‘first unsportsmanlike against that player’) allowing the player to continue, and the second level that brings the automatic ejection.

A mistake should carry the 15 yards, but a deliberate nasty dangerous act is when the player should be shown the way to locker room.

Since you don’t seem to know how to google here you go.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head
or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head
or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) 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 or a
legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not
limited to:
• 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 the helmet

Thank you, I think that confirms my suspicion, i didn’t see either of those calls triggering any of the indicators in the note. No launch, no crouch/thrust, no leading, and no initiation of force with crown. There was force by crown on Tyler, but contact was lead and initiated by shoulder.

All that said, I cant help believing that, based on recent history, both of those call would have been made against us if roles were reversed.

And I did google it but had a busy morning at my day job and my searches kept coming up with dated info. Apparently there was no rule change from last year to this, which is what the prior post seem to be suggesting.

1 Like

This article explains the rule change:

In general, targeting was far less frequent this season. That is why you felt like the non-calls against Oregon would have been called on Utah. They would have been called on anyone in 2018. The change worked against us Friday night, but it was a great change for college football overall.

additionally, I heard that this was a MWC crew versus a PAC-12 crew.