ADVERTISEMENT

Was that really targeting by McFadden?

jacksback

Junior
Feb 5, 2003
1,383
1,426
113
Was that truly targeting by McFadden? His helmet did appear to hit their QB in the facemask but he was first engaged with a guard and then engaged with their tackle right up until he hit their QB. Kinda tough to control your hit when you being pushed by a 300lb tackle. That was a huge call and just seemed to completely turn the tide of the game against us.
 
Nope. In the Purdue game Bell got knocked out. He was making a catch and the ND player launches and forearms him in the back of the neck area and drives his head into the turf. No call. It’s riduculous.
 
Indiana lost the game, they had plenty of opportunities to win, and gave it away. But I think this call might have cost us the game, it seems aggressive to say that when it was only the second quarter, but seriously it gave Cincy 10 points(I still think that we wouldn't have thrown the football much if they had gotten the ball back with 4 minutes left in the half, ergo we wouldn't have thrown that pick) and all the momentum going into the second half, we'll never know, but calling a game up 2 touchdowns with momentum and calling a game up 4 w/o momentum is very different. NTM, we had only given up 1 first down with Micah in the game and we all know what happened as soon as he was gone, the heart and sole of our defense thrown out of the game on a bang-bang obviously non malicious play, I was so pissed off.

I would've understood if it was the call on the field, but they allegedly went back to review something else, and then discover that this is targeting, absolute bs, as someone watching from the stands, I was so confused, I was like, didn't they say they were reviewing an incomplete pass, how did arguably our best player end up getting ejected. As for the call itself, as I alluded to earlier, it was kind of a bang-bang play, it looks like he launched at some angles, but at others it just looks like one of the O-linemen blocked him with full force into Ridder.

Something needs to change with targeting, I would say 3/4 of the targeting calls I see now are not malicious at all, sure 15 yards, but the kid doesn't deserve to be ejected because he misread an angle or went in a step late. I feel like it's pretty obvious to see when a kid is either trying to hit dirty, or just has no regard for safety of the opponents when they are making a tackle, but it doesn't matter to replay review all targeting's are somehow the same, just ridiculous.
 
Look at replay from Whop Philor getting knocked unconscious and fumbled two years ago. Kid from Auburn got kicked out tonight for a helpless player or some bullshit. Do you think any 1st team all American at Ohio St, Bama, Clemson, Notre Dame ect.ect ect. Would have been ejected. F that rule unless real maliciouness and aggregigous intentions are confirmed. I take a 15 yard penalty and if happens again to same player I will understand if they are disqualified. Rule has to get better. Not ejecting kids playing there ass off. Bullshit call. Cincinnati won't get that call at Notre Dame in two weeks. Just my two cents. I'm over it.
 
It was like a light switch being turned off after he was tossed from the game. Up until that point, Cincinnati was absolutely dead meat. They had absolutely zero offense and couldn't get anything at all working. Micah had their QB all kinds of shook up.

Our defense looked like the 85 Bears with Micah and just an average unit without him.
 
Yep. Absolutely. Putting in Tom Allen Jr. Didn't help. Think the world of the kid but he's to slow and not a big ten linebacker unfortunately. Cincinnati eyes lit up like a lion hunting an injured Buffalo or Zebra.
 
It was like a light switch being turned off after he was tossed from the game. Up until that point, Cincinnati was absolutely dead meat. They had absolutely zero offense and couldn't get anything at all working. Micah had their QB all kinds of shook up.

Our defense looked like the 85 Bears with Micah and just an average unit without him.
It was a stark contrast, wasn't it?

I know it's hard to pinpoint one item that cost us the game, but if anyone was there, they knew the game changed when he went out.

And went out on a bullshit call.
 
It was a stark contrast, wasn't it?

I know it's hard to pinpoint one item that cost us the game, but if anyone was there, they knew the game changed when he went out.

And went out on a bullshit call.
On my 65 inch OLED tv, it was the reason we lost the game. Sure, we made a lot of meat head plays, but I saw enough of that McFadden led defense to know that UC was not coming back from a 14-0 deficit with Micah patrolling the middle of the defense. It just wasn't going to happen.

That play assassinated IU. I just hope they have enough resolve to put together a decent season from this point on.
 
On my 65 inch OLED tv, it was the reason we lost the game. Sure, we made a lot of meat head plays, but I saw enough of that McFadden led defense to know that UC was not coming back from a 14-0 deficit with Micah patrolling the middle of the defense. It just wasn't going to happen.

That play assassinated IU. I just hope they have enough resolve to put together a decent season from this point on.
And who comes in to replace Micah but good old #44 - Tom Allen. Cinci went right to his position and started having success right away.

For God's sake, don't we have anyone better than Allen to put in there? Is our LB corps really that thin?
 
Yep. Absolutely. Putting in Tom Allen Jr. Didn't help. Think the world of the kid but he's to slow and not a big ten linebacker unfortunately. Cincinnati eyes lit up like a lion hunting an injured Buffalo or Zebra.
Totally agree, Love TA jr as a person, but omg the difference between him and Mcfadden in pass blitzing is night and day, Mcfadden disrupted on damn near every play, TA jr got pancaked at the LOS on damn near every play, Needless to say, Ridder felt a lot more comfortable with #47 on the sideline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13 and DANC
And who comes in to replace Micah but good old #44 - Tom Allen. Cinci went right to his position and started having success right away.

For God's sake, don't we have anyone better than Allen to put in there? Is our LB corps really that thin?
I really don't understand why James Miller, Bonhamme or another player wasn't utilized.

Develop some MLBers darn it, particularly if it's paramount to a TA defense.
 
I dont know either. Tom Allen Jr. Can't play. Slide someone else in. Ball? Cam Jones was taking heads in the first half. Move him to the middle and use Bonhamme or Miller to the edge or Handy. I saw #44 play 3 years ago against Penn St in that ridiculous cold windy game. He was slower than since today. Shouldn't be playing. No disrespect. Just the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13
Indiana lost the game, they had plenty of opportunities to win, and gave it away. But I think this call might have cost us the game, it seems aggressive to say that when it was only the second quarter, but seriously it gave Cincy 10 points(I still think that we wouldn't have thrown the football much if they had gotten the ball back with 4 minutes left in the half, ergo we wouldn't have thrown that pick) and all the momentum going into the second half, we'll never know, but calling a game up 2 touchdowns with momentum and calling a game up 4 w/o momentum is very different. NTM, we had only given up 1 first down with Micah in the game and we all know what happened as soon as he was gone, the heart and sole of our defense thrown out of the game on a bang-bang obviously non malicious play, I was so pissed off.

I would've understood if it was the call on the field, but they allegedly went back to review something else, and then discover that this is targeting, absolute bs, as someone watching from the stands, I was so confused, I was like, didn't they say they were reviewing an incomplete pass, how did arguably our best player end up getting ejected. As for the call itself, as I alluded to earlier, it was kind of a bang-bang play, it looks like he launched at some angles, but at others it just looks like one of the O-linemen blocked him with full force into Ridder.

Something needs to change with targeting, I would say 3/4 of the targeting calls I see now are not malicious at all, sure 15 yards, but the kid doesn't deserve to be ejected because he misread an angle or went in a step late. I feel like it's pretty obvious to see when a kid is either trying to hit dirty, or just has no regard for safety of the opponents when they are making a tackle, but it doesn't matter to replay review all targeting's are somehow the same, just ridiculous.
It really speaks to the state of where we are as a program that one play can cause us to fall apart.
 
Look at replay from Whop Philor getting knocked unconscious and fumbled two years ago. Kid from Auburn got kicked out tonight for a helpless player or some bullshit. Do you think any 1st team all American at Ohio St, Bama, Clemson, Notre Dame ect.ect ect. Would have been ejected. F that rule unless real maliciouness and aggregigous intentions are confirmed. I take a 15 yard penalty and if happens again to same player I will understand if they are disqualified. Rule has to get better. Not ejecting kids playing there ass off. Bullshit call. Cincinnati won't get that call at Notre Dame in two weeks. Just my two cents. I'm over it.
One Targeting/Non Targeting call I go back to is a call that was made in the Michigan- Florida game several years ago. This was one of those 1st week big intersectional National TV Matchups. Second play from scrimmage, Michigan's star Linebacker puts a late hit on a Florida Ball Carrier on the Sideline and makes helmet to Helmet Contact. Almost the textbook Targeting Call. After a 5 Minute review, they ruled it was not targeting. You almost got the idea that the powers that be at the TV Network called the review booth and instructed them not to have the Michigan Player ejected that early in the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13 and DANC
Was that truly targeting by McFadden? His helmet did appear to hit their QB in the facemask but he was first engaged with a guard and then engaged with their tackle right up until he hit their QB. Kinda tough to control your hit when you being pushed by a 300lb tackle. That was a huge call and just seemed to completely turn the tide of the game against us.
By the letter of the law yes. I can't believe I'm agreeing with the TV guy twice in one day but I thought he nailed it. Penalty? Fine, whatever. Ejection? Ridiculous.
 
Technically it was correct using the letter of the rule but in no way did it match the intent of the rule. Looking at it today away from the emotion and booze the hit in no way endangered Ridder and the penalty was disproportionate.

That said, the team should have bucked up hit back hard instead of falling into a group sadness.
 
It really speaks to the state of where we are as a program that one play can cause us to fall apart.
Not really, I mean yes we played worse after Mcfadden was ejected. But He is not just any random player, he is probably the best or at least most impactful player on the defensive side of the ball, one of the coaches said he is the heart and sole of the defense. Even say they get the 15 yard penalty, within the next few plays Ridder is able to pick up 20 yards cuz TA jr picked the wrong hole, a play Mcfadden probably would have read. Our pass rush notably fell off without Mcfadden as well. IUFB has a lot of issues, but I think they are mostly concentrated on offense, the defensive schemes have worked well, and the few times I have felt a defender made a poor play, it was some backup, TA jr, Josh Sanguinatti, Bryant Fitzgerald, etc. The defense is getting a lot of scapegoating because the offense and special teams keep screwing them over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13
If it was by the letter of the rule, the rule needs to be changed. Also, the DE from the other side was pushing Ridder toward McFadden which also altered the angle of the hit IMO, in addition to the OL pushing McFadden.
 
It really speaks to the state of where we are as a program that one play can cause us to fall apart.
Really so on that play it went from 4th and 10 and the punt team was coming onto the field to punt the ball. Instead they advance the ball 15 yards and it becomes a first down and go onto score a touchdown. We also lose our leader on defense who just happens to be an all-American. Instead of being up 14-0 and having all the momentum. It is 14-10. I’m not sure if you realize that was huge momentum swing . Happens a lot. Look at Alabama -Florida game. Bama was dominating then Bama gets a penalty for grounding the ball. Defense gets after Bama. Next thing you know Florida has a chance to tie it up late in the game.
 
It's literally the definition of a bang bang play, Ridder being knocked down by Jaren Handy changed where Ridder's head was, but more importantly, the offensive linemen blocking McFadden from the side changed the trajectory of where Micah would hit. Micah did the cleanest thing he could've done and that was to check up as much as he could once he realized the ball was out, there was a reason Ridder wasn't even knocked to the ground on the hit.

Honestly, I've changed my tune to acknowledge that under the letter of the law it was targeting, however the targeting call is written with overly broad language and doesn't take into account the surrounding circumstances that happen in football. It's like they wrote the rule for one on one tackles where there is no other player involved, and yet it still is enforced the same way when you add in all the extenuating circumstances, horrible.
 
It's literally the definition of a bang bang play, Ridder being knocked down by Jaren Handy changed where Ridder's head was, but more importantly, the offensive linemen blocking McFadden from the side changed the trajectory of where Micah would hit. Micah did the cleanest thing he could've done and that was to check up as much as he could once he realized the ball was out, there was a reason Ridder wasn't even knocked to the ground on the hit.

Honestly, I've changed my tune to acknowledge that under the letter of the law it was targeting, however the targeting call is written with overly broad language and doesn't take into account the surrounding circumstances that happen in football. It's like they wrote the rule for one on one tackles where there is no other player involved, and yet it still is enforced the same way when you add in all the extenuating circumstances, horrible.
I thought it was targeting but also wonder why it was not called by the referee standing right there. You have to wonder what he saw .
 
  • Like
Reactions: jlasson
I thought it was targeting but also wonder why it was not called by the referee standing right there. You have to wonder what he saw .
I don't think it was called because at full speed, it didn't look like targeting. I just don't see how you can call a guy for targeting when he's getting pushed by the OL and the QB is being pushed at him from the other direction.
 
I thought it was targeting but also wonder why it was not called by the referee standing right there. You have to wonder what he saw .
This is my problem with the call, and I was at the game and haven’t seen a replay, but the intent of replay is to right egregiously wrong calls. We are now calling games via slow motion replay by some clown in a booth trying to be self important. At what point do we start calling holding or PI from the booth ? Reversing the fumble call was apparently correct (again haven’t seen a replay) and that is what replay should be used for, but calling a “marginal” penalty from the booth is total BS.
And Tom Allen just said after reviewing the “targeting” call, they feel it was a bad call and it has been submitted to the league, too little too late for McFadden and IU. I firmly believe without that call, IU wins this game, but even with that call this game was there for the taking.
 
Last edited:
This is my problem with the call, and I was at the game and haven’t seen a replay, but the intent of replay is to right egregiously wrong calls. We are now calling games via slow motion replay by some clown in a booth trying to be self important. At what point do we start calling holding or PI from the booth ? Reversing the fumble call was apparently correct (again haven’t seen a replay) and that is what replay should be used for, but calling a “marginal” penalty from the booth is total BS.
And Tom Allen just said after reviewing the “targeting” call, they feel it was a bad call and it has been submitted to the league, too little too late for McFadden and IU. I firmly believe without that call, IU wins this game, but even with that call this game was there for the taking.
Thank you, it's the letter of the law, vs the spirit of the rule. Targeting with ejections was created to punish defenders who were willing to eat 15 yards if it meant they could make a dirty play at either a defenseless player, or needlessly target the offensive player's head. Most of those plays have been taken out by well... targeting. But the problem is everyone knows the language in targeting is far too general, 15 yards, fine, but anyone with eyes knows that was incidental helmet to helmet contact because both guys were being hit as the play happened. It wasn't even like Micah hit him hard, Ridder didn't even fall over.

My logic with this is IMO, TA junior's late hit that caused the roughing the passer call was far more dirty than Micah's hit(that one was correct, LB's are taught not to drive QB's into the ground for this exact reason), both were 15 yards, yet Micah get's tossed too, and Micah's was pretty clearly unintentional, TA jr intended to drive Ridder into the ground, yet because Micah had helmet to helmet contact, it was a targeting call. Something has to change with that rule, 80% of the kids that get thrown out aren't making dirty hits, yet they are still tossed by the letter of the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13
This is my problem with the call, and I was at the game and haven’t seen a replay, but the intent of replay is to right egregiously wrong calls. We are now calling games via slow motion replay by some clown in a booth trying to be self important. At what point do we start calling holding or PI from the booth ? Reversing the fumble call was apparently correct (again haven’t seen a replay) and that is what replay should be used for, but calling a “marginal” penalty from the booth is total BS.
And Tom Allen just said after reviewing the “targeting” call, they feel it was a bad call and it has been submitted to the league, too little too late for McFadden and IU. I firmly believe without that call, IU wins this game, but even with that call this game was there for the taking.
This. They shouldn't be able to "throw flags" from the booth. Ref on the field didn't call it but some schmuck in the booth gets to totally change the outcome of the game.
 
I'm focused/concerned on our inability to replace McFadden instead of focusing on the targeting call itself. Targeting calls happen. It wasn't the targeting call that killed us. It was our inability to replace that killed us. I thought we were in a better depth position. I agree TA Jr is not an answer. Just not quick or fast enough. They lived in the space McFadden vacated. I hope the TA Jr. experiment is over. In my opinion it cost us the game. Go Hoosiers!
 
Yes the biggest disappointment was seeing TA jr in the game instead of a better LB. I get TA jr knows the defense but it is play on the field that counts. I think they need to move DK Bonhomme to ILB as help is needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ekk and DANC
Yes the biggest disappointment was seeing TA jr in the game instead of a better LB. I get TA jr knows the defense but it is play on the field that counts. I think they need to move DK Bonhomme to ILB as help is needed.
Why Miller or DK weren't in there is highly questionable. What ever happened to Cam Williams?? He was a 4* LB just two years ago.
 
I thought 47 ducked slightly before he hit Ridder.
Facemask to facemask would not have been sent down to the referee.
Booth review after a no call was unfortunate, but is how the games are run now.
Clearly, the defense was not the same afterward
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT