Man...McFadden targeting is eating at me...

[IUNorth]

Up 14-0.

Cincy has no clue what to do, or how to move the ball.

3 and out, yet again. Not even a roughing the passer or personal foul call on the field. The review wasn't even initially about targeting, it was reviewing incomplete vs. fumble. I think under the current rules, its hard to argue against the targeting ruling. But I also think it would have been reasonable for them to not rule it targeting. Hence, the chance involved that's eating at me!!!!

Under 5 minutes to go in the first half. So its very possible, if not likely, we're headed into the locker room 14-0, 17-0, maybe even 21-0. Their defense didn't step up until that call either.

Does Cincy make some sort of adjustment at half at that point? There wasn't a sliver of evidence they'd have made THAT much of an adjustment.

They immediately attacked Allen and the middle of our defense once McFadden was out. And that's the main edge they had for the rest of the game. Even if they had seen something different to attack... I find it hard to envision anything they'd have found, being as effective or more effective if McFadden is playing. They outscored us 34-10 after his ejection. No chance it would have been that big of a shift if he hadn't been ejected.

So...the point to this line of thinking??... Full strength, I think we're better than Cincinnati. Taking into account how uneven Tom Allen teams perform, even within games, against good teams...I still think we beat that team more often than not at full strength.

So I guess the question is, how good is Cincinnati? How good is WKU? Are we more likely to come out Saturday like first 17 minutes of Cincy? First half of Iowa? Or somewhere in betweeen? I think if its even somewhere in between, we'll make a good game of it against PSU.

Iowa was Murphys Law to start that game.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

a freeze frame where face masks meet doesn't mean there was targeting, but the interpretation was that it did.

what was absent, and imo necessary for there to be actual targeting, is some velocity threshold involved, which there really wasn't imo, not to mention that McFadden was very much engaged with another player the entire time till masks met in a freeze frame.

masks are going to meet somewhere on almost every play, as are helmets, and if you took a snapshot mid play and said, "aha, look at that, masks touching", or "helmets touching", you could cry targeting on every play.

that said, the rule is good, but enforcement should require some impact velocity threshold greater than 1 mph, and that the perp not be completely engaged with another player up to that very instant, to the point he couldn't have actually "targeted" another player due to being totally engaged, even if he wanted to..

that said, IU relies a lot on emotion.

we can't let one or a set of plays that for the moment steals away that emotion, as with that play and the start at Iowa, totally throw us off our game, which both times it did.

 

[jlasson]

I get it, not only was it a bang-bang play, but a very questionable call nonetheless. I won't go into the details on the drop off that occurs with Allen in for McFadden, but if McFadden hadn't been ejected I believe we would've won the game and the narrative would be that the B1G is incredibly deep with 5 of the 7 B1G east teams being ranked.

With all that being said, IU gave the game away With or W/O McFadden. You can't get 30 yards from the end zone and come up with 0 points three times. Your top wide reciever can't drop three balls that should be guaranteed catches. You can't allow kick return TD's because your career backups wanted to be heroes and got out of their lanes. You can't let the opponent get any points the rest of the half when you get the ball back with a minute left in the second quarter. You cannot make those kinds of mistakes and expect to beat a top 10 team.

I personally believe Cincy is a pretty overrated football team, not worthy of being in the top 10 and will lose this weekend in South Bend. That's what irks me more than anything, other than the McFadden call I can't really be mad we lost because there were just so many self inflicted setbacks. But on the other side, Cincy could've been down 28-0 going into halftime, and should've been down at least 20-0 to an unranked team. They caught so many breaks it's ridiculous and then the takeaway of the game for Cincy fans is that they had a "slow start" and then after that beat IU 38-10. That narrative drives me crazy because it's just so disingenuous, even with all of the mistakes highlighted above, Indiana was still in it with 4 minutes to go in the game, what I consider to be a pick 6 makes it seem like Cincy won this game definitively and that couldn't be further from the truth. It reminds me a lot of PSU-IU last year, IU caught so many breaks in that game and I think we all can agree PSU should've won, but they gave the game away, and we still only won by one point in OT. I am sure this is how PSU fans felt last year, and it's a very frustrating feeling.

IU can't change the result of that game though, so what they have to do is not parallel what PSU did and completely unravel because they lost one game they should've won. They need to put the result in the rearview mirror and just remember how well they controlled that Cincy game, and then they just need to relax and play their game. Penix and Fryfogle looked so much more comfortable last game I am hoping that carries over into B1G play because lord knows with DJ Matthews out we are going to need Fryfogle now more than ever before. They've gotta move on and just believe in themselves. Go Hoosiers!

 

[76-1]

I get it, not only was it a bang-bang play, but a very questionable call nonetheless. I won't go into the details on the drop off that occurs with Allen in for McFadden, but if McFadden hadn't been ejected I believe we would've won the game and the narrative would be that the B1G is incredibly deep with 5 of the 7 B1G east teams being ranked.

With all that being said, IU gave the game away With or W/O McFadden. You can't get 30 yards from the end zone and come up with 0 points three times. Your top wide reciever can't drop three balls that should be guaranteed catches. You can't allow kick return TD's because your career backups wanted to be heroes and got out of their lanes. You can't let the opponent get any points the rest of the half when you get the ball back with a minute left in the second quarter. You cannot make those kinds of mistakes and expect to beat a top 10 team.

I personally believe Cincy is a pretty overrated football team, not worthy of being in the top 10 and will lose this weekend in South Bend. That's what irks me more than anything, other than the McFadden call I can't really be mad we lost because there were just so many self inflicted setbacks. But on the other side, Cincy could've been down 28-0 going into halftime, and should've been down at least 20-0 to an unranked team. They caught so many breaks it's ridiculous and then the takeaway of the game for Cincy fans is that they had a "slow start" and then after that beat IU 38-10. That narrative drives me crazy because it's just so disingenuous, even with all of the mistakes highlighted above, Indiana was still in it with 4 minutes to go in the game, what I consider to be a pick 6 makes it seem like Cincy won this game definitively and that couldn't be further from the truth. It reminds me a lot of PSU-IU last year, IU caught so many breaks in that game and I think we all can agree PSU should've won, but they gave the game away, and we still only won by one point in OT. I am sure this is how PSU fans felt last year, and it's a very frustrating feeling.

IU can't change the result of that game though, so what they have to do is not parallel what PSU did and completely unravel because they lost one game they should've won. They need to put the result in the rearview mirror and just remember how well they controlled that Cincy game, and then they just need to relax and play their game. Penix and Fryfogle looked so much more comfortable last game I am hoping that carries over into B1G play because lord knows with DJ Matthews out we are going to need Fryfogle now more than ever before. They've gotta move on and just believe in themselves. Go Hoosiers!

We're going to need more focus out of the entire receiving corps including Fryfogle... (and including the RB's)..., when it comes to catching the football...

I don't have the stats but my eyes have told me that we've dropped far, far, too many catchable passes over the past few years than we should have... We can't routinely do that in a game of this magnitude and pull off a Big Ten road win...

Heard supposedly has some real depth this season. I wouldn't mind seeing him use it if the two deep keep letting the ball hit the turf...

On a positive note, the Receivers run blocking appears to have gotten better (against W Ky)...

We're going to need some serious Focus and Tenacity from the Receivers to win this one, let's hope we get to see it...

 

[vesuvius13]

IU will need to be very focused against PSU and yes the rule on targeting is be called different than what the reason it was passed. Unfortunately, it is a poorly written rule to take away any judgment of the officials. One thing to help would be to not let replay officials call targeting with no personal penalty on the field.

 

[td75]

Cincinnati was dead meat until that play. I can say without hesitation that Indiana has never dominated a top 10 opponent the way they did Cincinnati to that point in the game.

No, Cincinnati wasn't coming back, it was ballgame at that point.

 

[Al Bino]

Up 14-0.

Cincy has no clue what to do, or how to move the ball.

3 and out, yet again. Not even a roughing the passer or personal foul call on the field. The review wasn't even initially about targeting, it was reviewing incomplete vs. fumble. I think under the current rules, its hard to argue against the targeting ruling. But I also think it would have been reasonable for them to not rule it targeting. Hence, the chance involved that's eating at me!!!!

Under 5 minutes to go in the first half. So its very possible, if not likely, we're headed into the locker room 14-0, 17-0, maybe even 21-0. Their defense didn't step up until that call either.

Does Cincy make some sort of adjustment at half at that point? There wasn't a sliver of evidence they'd have made THAT much of an adjustment.

They immediately attacked Allen and the middle of our defense once McFadden was out. And that's the main edge they had for the rest of the game. Even if they had seen something different to attack... I find it hard to envision anything they'd have found, being as effective or more effective if McFadden is playing. They outscored us 34-10 after his ejection. No chance it would have been that big of a shift if he hadn't been ejected.

So...the point to this line of thinking??... Full strength, I think we're better than Cincinnati. Taking into account how uneven Tom Allen teams perform, even within games, against good teams...I still think we beat that team more often than not at full strength.

So I guess the question is, how good is Cincinnati? How good is WKU? Are we more likely to come out Saturday like first 17 minutes of Cincy? First half of Iowa? Or somewhere in betweeen? I think if its even somewhere in between, we'll make a good game of it against PSU.

Iowa was Murphys Law to start that game.

It was a BS call especially when viewed though other calls.

It isn't roughing the punter when the player is blocked into the punter.

It isn't targeting when the running back lowers his helmet, why?

Almost any rule becomes a problem if called in a vacuum. Conditions should be added to make the rule more effective.

 

[Crossblock]

I was thinking last night, What former IU Linebacker does McFadden most resemble. My answer was Joe Norman from the mid 1970's, Both just seem to have an instinct for getting to the Ball and being involved in the play. The biggest difference I see is that with the more spread offenses of today, McFadden has to do more in pass coverage and Field coverage. In Norman's time, Defenses were really designed to free up linebackers and funnel ball carriers to them.

 

[Fenny72]

We're going to need more focus out of the entire receiving corps including Fryfogle... (and including the RB's)..., when it comes to catching the football...

I don't have the stats but my eyes have told me that we've dropped far, far, too many catchable passes over the past few years than we should have... We can't routinely do that in a game of this magnitude and pull off a Big Ten road win...

Heard supposedly has some real depth this season. I wouldn't mind seeing him use it if the two deep keep letting the ball hit the turf...

On a positive note, the Receivers run blocking appears to have gotten better (against W Ky)...

We're going to need some serious Focus and Tenacity from the Receivers to win this one, let's hope we get to see it...

Agree on the WRs. Expected more from that group. Marshall, Swinton and Hewitt need to step up and be consistent, with at least one of them a game changer. Ty-Fry needs to get back to dominating like he did last year. I haven't been impressed with Buckley at all this year, but NS mentioned that he sees him turning the corner in his last press conference, so hope that is true. Would be a great time for the WR group to show up Saturday night!

 

[IndyIUFan66]

Agree on the WRs. Expected more from that group. Marshall, Swinton and Hewitt need to step up and be consistent, with at least one of them a game changer. Ty-Fry needs to get back to dominating like he did last year. I haven't been impressed with Buckley at all this year, but NS mentioned that he sees him turning the corner in his last press conference, so hope that is true. Would be a great time for the WR group to show up Saturday night!

Thus far to me Buckley has all but been MIA. I'd love to see him find his footing starting this week vs. PSU, but until I see otherwise, I'm looking for Marshall, Swinton & Hewitt (or any other speedy FR WR's getting a shot) to step up at WR to help Fryfogle & Hendershot w/Penix.

 

[abraxis]

Until proven otherwise, this is IU's football season edition 2021-22 defining moment, sadly worded as such.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Cincinnati was dead meat until that play. I can say without hesitation that Indiana has never dominated a top 10 opponent the way they did Cincinnati to that point in the game.

No, Cincinnati wasn't coming back, it was ballgame at that point.

101% agree but man...this team has to not fold up like that...both sides of the ball.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Up 14-0.

Cincy has no clue what to do, or how to move the ball.

3 and out, yet again. Not even a roughing the passer or personal foul call on the field. The review wasn't even initially about targeting, it was reviewing incomplete vs. fumble. I think under the current rules, its hard to argue against the targeting ruling. But I also think it would have been reasonable for them to not rule it targeting. Hence, the chance involved that's eating at me!!!!

Under 5 minutes to go in the first half. So its very possible, if not likely, we're headed into the locker room 14-0, 17-0, maybe even 21-0. Their defense didn't step up until that call either.

Does Cincy make some sort of adjustment at half at that point? There wasn't a sliver of evidence they'd have made THAT much of an adjustment.

They immediately attacked Allen and the middle of our defense once McFadden was out. And that's the main edge they had for the rest of the game. Even if they had seen something different to attack... I find it hard to envision anything they'd have found, being as effective or more effective if McFadden is playing. They outscored us 34-10 after his ejection. No chance it would have been that big of a shift if he hadn't been ejected.

So...the point to this line of thinking??... Full strength, I think we're better than Cincinnati. Taking into account how uneven Tom Allen teams perform, even within games, against good teams...I still think we beat that team more often than not at full strength.

So I guess the question is, how good is Cincinnati? How good is WKU? Are we more likely to come out Saturday like first 17 minutes of Cincy? First half of Iowa? Or somewhere in betweeen? I think if its even somewhere in between, we'll make a good game of it against PSU.

Iowa was Murphys Law to start that game.

I agree we would have won the game w/o McFadden's disqualification, but I think your interpretation of what happened that first quarter is out-of-whack.

The crowd and the emotions of the moment hugely influenced the first 22 minutes or so of the game. Essentially, Cincy lost their shit and our guys were playing flat out on D. How many illegal motion penalties did Cincy have, all based on our DL shifting? As long as everything was working for us all was well. But, as happened before with CTA teams, once we faced some adversity all the air was let out of the balloon.

Frankly, we look like a top 35 (or so) team. Cincy may be somewhat over-rated, but they're certainly not worse than top 20. On a neutral field, they probably beat us 7/10 times.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

The 4th and 1 fail is what eats me.

Never shoulda called a QB sneak.

If you just line up and run a play, after the way we were getting yardage, it’s 1st and goal.

If you just kick a FG it’s still huge. 10-0.

we scored again before McFadden went out.

It shoulda been either 17-0 or 21-0 when McFadden got tossed.

We might have rolled them. Instead, it was 14-10 at half.

We gave the momentum to UC, and it was multiplied when McFadden left.

but … we should be to overcome stuff anyway. “Mental is to physical as 3 is to 1.”

 

[Courtsensetwo]

It was a BS call especially when viewed though other calls.

It isn't roughing the punter when the player is blocked into the punter.

It isn't targeting when the running back lowers his helmet, why?

Almost any rule becomes a problem if called in a vacuum. Conditions should be added to make the rule more effective.

 

[JohnsyRick]

View embedded media

Yes, and if you show the other half of that tweet, it will show you what ISN’T targeting (if your Penn State that is) against Whop Philyor.

 

[turney333]

The 4th and 1 fail is what eats me.

Never shoulda called a QB sneak.

If you just line up and run a play, after the way we were getting yardage, it’s 1st and goal.

If you just kick a FG it’s still huge. 10-0.

we scored again before McFadden went out.

It shoulda been either 17-0 or 21-0 when McFadden got tossed.

We might have rolled them. Instead, it was 14-10 at half.

We gave the momentum to UC, and it was multiplied when McFadden left.

but … we should be to overcome stuff anyway. “Mental is to physical as 3 is to 1.”

I have rewatched that series a couple of times, and feel that it was 100% on Penix, through a combination of misjudging the spot and not reading the defense.

The previous play was a 3rd and 3, and IU took its time and even huddled, most likely had already decided to go for it on 4th and were going over the plays for both downs. IU picks up 2 yards on a run play, and its 4th and a long 1 (probably a solid 4 ft) at the 10yd line. As far as I can tell, Penix never looks to the sideline, and lines up immediately. Now, I'm guessing that a sneak was the play call if the spot was inside 2 ft and a handoff to Carr if between 2yds and 2ft (or some other cutoff) as the full 4 ft is way too long for a well blocked sneak - certainly on Penix at that point.

Also, Cincy 6 guys on the line of scrimmage and another 2 off the line by maybe a yard or less, with IU trying to block those 8 defenders with just 7 guys, essentially dooming the sneak before the snap. Plus with the way the defense was aligned, a handoff to Carr would have allowed to Carr to practically walk into the endzone.

 

[vesuvius13]

The 4th and 1 fail is what eats me.

Never shoulda called a QB sneak.

If you just line up and run a play, after the way we were getting yardage, it’s 1st and goal.

If you just kick a FG it’s still huge. 10-0.

we scored again before McFadden went out.

It shoulda been either 17-0 or 21-0 when McFadden got tossed.

We might have rolled them. Instead, it was 14-10 at half.

We gave the momentum to UC, and it was multiplied when McFadden left.

but … we should be to overcome stuff anyway. “Mental is to physical as 3 is to 1.”

I don't understand why coach Sheridan has changed the way IU runs QB sneak when it was so successful in the past. I agree that running a play at that time would have been better. It just seems coach Sheridan is more into trying to trick defenses which is what the no count QB sneak is.

 

[abraxis]

View embedded media

Easier said than done with ITCEAMN, the Inability to contain emotions at moments notice, a character flaw since early childhood, left untreated.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Yes, and if you show the other half of that tweet, it will show you what ISN’T targeting (if your Penn State that is) against Whop Philyor.

I meant to. Linkfail 101.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

I don't understand why coach Sheridan has changed the way IU runs QB sneak when it was so successful in the past. I agree that running a play at that time would have been better. It just seems coach Sheridan is more into trying to trick defenses which is what the no count QB sneak is.

Love the QB sneak when the yardage to be gained is a little less than a yard or less.

Wasn't it about a yard and a half in that instance?

 

[4IUSox2]

Great comp on Joe Norman to Micah!!

People here under the age of 55 likely have no idea who Joe was but MM should take that as a major compliment!! Absolute beast!!

 

[TMFT]

I was thinking last night, What former IU Linebacker does McFadden most resemble. My answer was Joe Norman from the mid 1970's, Both just seem to have an instinct for getting to the Ball and being involved in the play. The biggest difference I see is that with the more spread offenses of today, McFadden has to do more in pass coverage and Field coverage. In Norman's time, Defenses were really designed to free up linebackers and funnel ball carriers to them.

John Kerr maybe?

 

[kmathum]

It was a BS call especially when viewed though other calls.

It isn't roughing the punter when the player is blocked into the punter.

It isn't targeting when the running back lowers his helmet, why?

Almost any rule becomes a problem if called in a vacuum. Conditions should be added to make the rule more effective.

stupid rule. get rid of it. the powers that be have taken a great game and ruined it. all because they're afraid of lawsuits.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Odds.
On the field no call at all.
odds
in the replay booth, they question if a completion or fumble ??? The pass WAS NOT WITHIN 13 yards of an receiver. Just to repeat NOT WITHIN 13 YARDS OF A RECEIVER.
odds
Oh snap, the replay booth see's a potential targeting call. This is the 3rd attempt to slow IU down..
ODDS

YOu know vegas doesn't always take bets only on the final outcome, but also who has certain position at half, or even how many defensive stops at a point in the game.....

It took the 3rd attempt to stop this IU team at that point. NONE of which came from their ON FIELD opponent.
Anyone know when the last College FB call of targeting came under these circumstances? OR a call to eject a key player on the 3rd option of an excuse? Has it ever happened?

 

[abraxis]

Love the QB sneak when the yardage to be gained is a little less than a yard or less.

Wasn't it about a yard and a half in that instance?

Whatever the distance was it was too long of distance for a quarterback sneak that never snuck. Any further squabble is null and void.

 

[Fpeaugh2]

It was the correct call with the current rules. But that rule needs to be changed and there needs to be more flexibility given to the officials. That’s not the type of hit the rule was created for.

I agree I think we win without that call. But we also had plenty of chances and blew it. Coach Allen made some horrendous decisions. Penix didn’t help. Our lack of depth behind McFadden was a disaster. But this was the turning point when it all unraveled and the momentum changed.

 

[oldcougar77]

It was the correct call with the current rules. But that rule needs to be changed and there needs to be more flexibility given to the officials. That’s not the type of hit the rule was created for.

I agree I think we win without that call. But we also had plenty of chances and blew it. Coach Allen made some horrendous decisions. Penix didn’t help. Our lack of depth behind McFadden was a disaster. But this was the turning point when it all unraveled and the momentum changed.

Hopefully one of the things that is being fixed is moving one of our other linebackers to that "Mike" position to back up McFadden. I love Thomas Allen's effort and resolve and I'm sure the coaches trust him completely with running the defense when McFadden is off the field. But he lacks the speed necessary to play that position. Now that the film from Cincinnati proves it definitively, other teams will exploit that situation at will.

 

[Army88]

It was the correct call with the current rules. But that rule needs to be changed and there needs to be more flexibility given to the officials. That’s not the type of hit the rule was created for.

I agree I think we win without that call. But we also had plenty of chances and blew it. Coach Allen made some horrendous decisions. Penix didn’t help. Our lack of depth behind McFadden was a disaster. But this was the turning point when it all unraveled and the momentum changed.

(The call was correct) With the current rules AND (IMO), the booth not taking account that both McFadden And the QB were hit milliseconds before they came in contact with each other. I personally don’t feel the hit was an obvious violation, if you consider that he QB’s head and McFadden’s head position were Both affected by both being hit. (Otherwise, a qb could get any player eliminated by simply ducking his own head into the defensive players head).
THERE is merit in the intent of the rule, but it is stupid that the only penalty is “player disqualification” and there isn’t an interpretation component to the call And 2 distinctive penalties, with Non-disqualification as one of the options!

 

[sparkeyreturns]

a freeze frame where face masks meet doesn't mean there was targeting, but the interpretation was that it did.

what was absent, and imo necessary for there to be actual targeting, is some velocity threshold involved, which there really wasn't imo, not to mention that McFadden was very much engaged with another player the entire time till masks met in a freeze frame.

masks are going to meet somewhere on almost every play, as are helmets, and if you took a snapshot mid play and said, "aha, look at that, masks touching", or "helmets touching", you could cry targeting on every play.

that said, the rule is good, but enforcement should require some impact velocity threshold greater than 1 mph, and that the perp not be completely engaged with another player up to that very instant, to the point he couldn't have actually "targeted" another player due to being totally engaged, even if he wanted to..

that said, IU relies a lot on emotion.

we can't let one or a set of plays that for the moment steals away that emotion, as with that play and the start at Iowa, totally throw us off our game, which both times it did.

You are wrong. Face to face does not matter at all. It's not in the rules. It's the crown that matters

 

[ESalum86]

You are wrong. Face to face does not matter at all. It's not in the rules. It's the crown that matters

Then why was McFadden penalized? There was no crown involved that I saw, it was a facemask to facemask hit. A hit which, by the way, no one from UC (QB, coaches on the field or in the box, players on the field) nor any of the officials on the field acknowledged in any way. In fact, it took the booth officials a LONG time to signal a review.

The hit may meet the letter of the law, but it was a horseshite call all the way around. It was the football equivalent of a pack of 22 cars all driving 80 mph on the open highway in perfect driving conditions when suddenly a state trooper comes into the middle of the pack and pulls one car over and cites him for speeding.

 

[Fpeaugh2]

(The call was correct) With the current rules AND (IMO), the booth not taking account that both McFadden And the QB were hit milliseconds before they came in contact with each other. I personally don’t feel the hit was an obvious violation, if you consider that he QB’s head and McFadden’s head position were Both affected by both being hit. (Otherwise, a qb could get any player eliminated by simply ducking his own head into the defensive players head).
THERE is merit in the intent of the rule, but it is stupid that the only penalty is “player disqualification” and there isn’t an interpretation component to the call And 2 distinctive penalties, with Non-disqualification as one of the options!

I completely agree. They should start giving the officials more flexibility. It wasn’t malicious at all. But that’s how they’ve been consistently calling it.

 

[sparkeyreturns]

Then why was McFadden penalized? There was no crown involved that I saw, it was a facemask to facemask hit. A hit which, by the way, no one from UC (QB, coaches on the field or in the box, players on the field) nor any of the officials on the field acknowledged in any way. In fact, it took the booth officials a LONG time to signal a review.

The hit may meet the letter of the law, but it was a horseshite call all the way around. It was the football equivalent of a pack of 22 cars all driving 80 mph on the open highway in perfect driving conditions when suddenly a state trooper comes into the middle of the pack and pulls one car over and cites him for speeding.

It was obvious he hit with the crown. After I watched the rely I immediately knew he was gone. It's the rule. If you think he didn't hit with crown then you need to go back and rewatch. If you still think he didn't hit with the crown you dont know what is considered the crown.

 

[Hoosiers Rising]

It was obvious he hit with the crown. After I watched the rely I immediately knew he was gone. It's the rule. If you think he didn't hit with crown then you need to go back and rewatch. If you still think he didn't hit with the crown you dont know what is considered the crown.

I didn’t see a replay that was very good look. The crown is the top of the helmet and since they were both upright that would have been tough to do. The crown is always targeting or supposed to be. Any contact above the shoulders on a defenseless player is targeting A defenseless player being a QB in the pocket or a receiver as they are catching the ball. He did make contact with ritters helmet but was incidental for the most part although his head did dip slightly.

 

[TMFT]

For real. Thinodeaux for Oregon just took the Stanford QB out on a WAAAAY more egregious hit than got Micah booted. He better get tossed for that

 

[ElMeson]

For real. Thinodeaux for Oregon just took the Stanford QB out on a WAAAAY more egregious hit than got Micah booted. He better get tossed for that

The call itself isn’t consistent. Jamar Johnson got away with a clear targeting vs OSU last year on 4th down that would have sealed the game for them. The penalty is fine but the ejection is awful.