I have looked at the replay of Coley’s hit on the sidelines about 20 times. Late hit? Maybe. Targeting? Nope! He is running 100 mph, the ball was swatted away at the last second by Pulley, otherwise the receiver likely catches it and could have gone the distance. How was it physically possible for him to not have any contact with the guy? These rules have gotten so out of hand that they expect a player to pull up in .2 seconds and not touch the player. It’s impossible. There’s a good clip of it on Jimmy Carter’s film room observations article. This did not cost us the game but I am looking at right / wrong. There is a difference between a malicious act and playing the sport at full speed. He should not have been kicked out of the game for playing football.
Unfortunately those type of plays are not reviewable, not that it matters, after reviewing the called non TD by AA and history has shown, we don’t get calls reversed in our favor anyway that should be.
I think Coley could have pulled up or changed course, so I couldn’t argue with the 15 yards for late hit. I did not think it was targeting. First contact was made with the shoulder, not the head; then the helmets made incidental contact afterward. There was a lot bigger shot last night in the Cowboys game; a Bears DB dropped Cole Beasley, but it was with his shoulder to the torso and there was no flag.
Unfortunately, in the college game anyway, “targeting” seems to have a different meaning. The refs tend to call helmet to helmet targeting, whether it is intentional (subjective?) or not. I agree it didn’t look like “head hunting”, but it was definitely helmet to helmet contact. Coley didn’t “lower” his helmet to try to go in head-first but the 2 helmets did collide.
The late hit was certainly the right call, but I didn’t think he was guilty of targeting–at least as I understand the rule. Either way, it was dumb on his part.
None of us can ever know “what might have been” but that was a very important play. Instead of giving them new life close to midfield, we’d have fielded a punt somewhere around the 50. That’s a big turn of events.
It was a late hit. Very late and very stupid. It may have changed the game. Who know with what A&M did in the second half, maybe made no difference. But anyway, I didn’t think it was targeting. He pretty much lead with his shoulder.
I think it was SO LATE and so unnecessary that lead to the targeting call.
He has to pull off when the ball bounces away. He also delivered a fore-arm to the area above the neck. Bret Bielema said he could understand targeting in looking at the tape and does not question the call. I don’t either.
I thought it was a very stupid play on his part. How much did we miss him at Safety the rest of the way?
Cooley could have looked, pulled up and avoided the hit. His fault costing us a field goal, and little more negative plays which ultimately adds up to a loss. Targeting? it was not. Hope lesson learned.
Very uncalled for and stupid not to pull up. He took two full steps knowing the ball was not caught and of course it always has great ramifications for us.
Late, sure, but no way that was targeting. He almost had his back completely turned. Just some home cooking.
I better go back and look at it because I thought it was consistent with what you see called in college football. It wasn’t the crown of the helmet, but helmet to helmet. Bad thing, is other than being late on the hit, ---- I bet Atwater and Kennedy would have been proud back in the day. That was the way you kept bigger, faster receivers from dominating. But those days are gone — and understandably so.
Interpetation of the rule is any contact with helmet, shoulder, or forearms in a launching manner and contact made above shoulders is targeting. That is why it was called.
When I saw it, it looked like every other targeting call I have seen called. I said a bunch of bad words and targeting. There was never a doubt in my mind it was.
Bear in mind, I am the epitome of an armchair quarterback, so please take that into consideration.
And you just knew that was the breath of life they needed. They should have been punting from their end zone.
My heart fell when I saw that. I had the worst feeling of dread. I just knew something would go wrong. However, I tried to maintain a positive attitude.
Actually the targeting aspect of it absolutely IS reviewable and in fact all targeting calls/targeting ejections are reviewed.
The problem is that almost any forceable helmet-to-helmet contact is targeting by the letter of the law.
And, that’s what I hate about the rule. Sometimes it is strictly construed like Coley’s and sometimes a safety and RB both meet in the hole and ran helmets and it is never a penalty.
I don’t have a problem with the Coley ejection. It was weak contact but it was so unnecessary and foolish and selfish that he deserved whatever he received.
Stand corrected,
thoughts on the AA non TD call and review?
I listed my thoughts in another thread, but will repeat here. Call on the field was he was down. Important, because then you have to have indisputable evidence that the call was wrong to change it. We saw the replay that he got the ball over the line BUT we did not see when his knee was down. Since the knee could have been down before he got the ball over the line, there was no indisputable evidence. What we needed was the goal line pylon cam on the far side. Didn’t have it. With what they had to look at, I wouldn’t have changed the call either.
This, totally.