Mr. Pollard, what about the phantom "targeting" call against Lomax?

[Eda]

It was OBVIOUSLY the correct call.

Some people are so bad at understanding football that they really should consider finding something else to do with their weekends.

"You present tremendous insight, and add greatly to the dialogue. Please continue to share your thoughts with us in the future"

-no one ever

 

[MiniMoeHawk]

It is all about the players safety....3 high school kids have died on the field already. 1 might not be related since it was during the pregame work out but it is ok to favor caution in these situations.

 

[jacknicholson]

I don't think anyone is claiming that the game was lost due to two bad calls I'll include the holding call there). Although, an argument could be made-especially in a close game. The fact that it was against such a bad team certainly adds salt to the wound. You shouldn't be in the position against that terrible of a team.

The same thought could be applied to the hit. Lomax put himself in a position where the refs could call the hit (to which brings me to my previous point-just because they called the hit, doesn't make it a correct call). As I seen it, it appears Lomax hit West with his shoulder/bicep/elbow on the shoulder pad area. Lomax didn't launch or lead With the crown of his helmet. It also appeared Lomax turned as he was dropping down to make the hit, causing him to make contact a with his shoulder/bicep/elbow area (rather than head on). Because Mabin was making the tackle, Lomax had to go lower to make contact.

A targeting call has to be made on the defenseless opponent with contact initiated to the head/neck area or targeting with a hit by the crown of a helmet in any situation.

Lomax hit the receiver with his shoulder/bicep/elbow to the receivers shoulder. IMO, not a target.

Totally agree, Eda.....

I don't believe there should have been any call at all, especially one that ejects a player from the game.....

 

[thejumper5]

Just for the sake of furthuring the conversation, here is the exacting language used in the NCAA rulebook in regards to targeting.

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

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. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1- 4-I-VI)

The problem with the rule--and the thing that, unfortunately, made it a penalty on Lomax--is the final wording "When in question, it is a foul." That's a really, really strict standard. In the case of Lomax, if you watch the video, it is clear that he did the following:
1. Made forcible contact.
2. To the head/neck area.
3. With his helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

There is some question about:
1. Lomax's intent.
2. Whether or not West was a "defenseless opponent."

Unfortunately, the strict standard of "When in question, it is a foul" necessitated that a targeting penalty be called on Lomax in that case. It's a really strict standard (I think excessively so), but it is the rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHXBV7yxJw4

 

[jacknicholson]

And that was Big12 officials at that game. Don't forget the questionable holding call on Jewell on 3rd down to allow ISU into field goal range to kick the game winner. So basically ISU has won 1 game, and it was because of the Big12 officials. ISU should be THANKING them, not ripping them.

The officials reaped the rewards in many ways.....

However they decided the call in the correct manner.....

 

[jacknicholson]

Look back, people posted side by side videos of no calls that far more blatant than the Lomax play. In two of them the defending player left their feet and clearly initiated contact to the head and shoulder region. Yet there was no call. In the Lomax play both players were going for the ball and the contact was incidental and not caused by the defending player. We should be upset about this too because if it is not called the clowns have to punt, there is no clown td on the drive, and chances are Iowa wins.

The only way to look at it.....


Makes one question the non call in the Ball State game.....