Big12 refs I think

Didn't do us any favors.

That would have got us 1st and goal from the one.

Two words: Eugene Semko

Angry Jonathan Zaludek said:

---

Love the t-shirt sips camped out on TexAgs that day, assuring us it wasn't "helmet to helmet" and that the Miami player didn't "launch" himself into Ruben Owens. That same player (Mohamed Toure) was allowed to target in yesterday's game against Ohio State, completely exposing the lie that targeting calls are about "player safety".

---

Launching is not a requirement. Anyone saying that doesn't understand English.

No more targeting calls.

Anyone got the 2024 Aggie / sip targetting call where we glanced by sip helmet and got a flag?

Logos Stick said:

---

Angry Jonathan Zaludek said:

---

Love the t-shirt sips camped out on TexAgs that day, assuring us it wasn't "helmet to helmet" and that the Miami player didn't "launch" himself into Ruben Owens. That same player (Mohamed Toure) was allowed to target in yesterday's game against Ohio State, completely exposing the lie that targeting calls are about "player safety".

---

Launching is not a requirement. Anyone saying that doesn't understand English.

---

Then why do rules analysts on TV mention it?

I looked it up. They are using launching as "forcible contact".

Aggie2 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Angry Jonathan Zaludek said:

---

Love the t-shirt sips camped out on TexAgs that day, assuring us it wasn't "helmet to helmet" and that the Miami player didn't "launch" himself into Ruben Owens. That same player (Mohamed Toure) was allowed to target in yesterday's game against Ohio State, completely exposing the lie that targeting calls are about "player safety".

---

Launching is not a requirement. Anyone saying that doesn't understand English.

---

Then why do rules analysts on TV mention it?

I looked it up. They are using launching as "forcible contact".

---

Launching is not a requirement. Lack of launching doesn't negate targeting. Launching is a consideration when assessing the foul.

TonyD33 said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

Anyone got the 2024 Aggie / sip targetting call where we glanced by sip helmet and got a flag?

---

That was 2011. It extended their winning drive.

---

Sorry, 2011. Wasn't it the opposite last year where they clearly targeted us, but it was a no call ?

My understanding is that there are only 2 elements required for targeting in this scenario against Miami.

1 - defenseless player. Check. He's in the act of catching, so defenseless by definition.

2 - forceable contact to head or neck area. I believe this is the case too. I have seen it argued that Owens was hit in the shoulder but I don't think that's the case. At MINIMUM it should have been reviewed by the booth.

All the other stuff (launching, crown of the helmet, etc) only comes into play when it's not a defenseless receiver. Irrelevant in this case.

That's my understanding, at least.

I think all conferences should follow the lead of the ACC and broadcast the review discussion. Would help fans understand what the officials are looking at. It would also add a lot of transparency and accountability to the process.

This could have been a game-changer. I'm not surprised it went against us. But I didn't see a strong overall pattern of biased officiation in our UM game (this play nws).

Regardless, IMO we could really benefit from signal boosting of this kind of crap, as much as directly rectifying said crap. e.g. I saw some random YTer talking about our matchup and they mentioned that "A&M got away with a hold on the last play of the ND game." Of course I immediately unsubscribed & clicked to tell YT "do not recommend this channel." But, you recall, the NBC broadcast team specifically highlighted that at the end of our game. No one talks about the bogus holding call that killed our first drive. No one talks about the bogus holding call on the KR (or P?) return for TD...both of which could have been equally impactful.

If we could get the national media talking about "A&M was one missed targeting call away from beating Miami" -- very plausible given the facts at hand -- it'd produce notable improvement in our treatment next year.

Guess whose shoulders need to bear that burden. Yep, Trev Alberts.

Fatboy Thaddeus said:

---

This could have been a game-changer. I'm not surprised it went against us. But I didn't see a strong overall pattern of biased officiation in our UM game (this play nws).

Regardless, IMO we could really benefit from signal boosting of this kind of crap, as much as directly rectifying said crap. e.g. I saw some random YTer talking about our matchup and they mentioned that "A&M got away with a hold on the last play of the ND game." Of course I immediately unsubscribed & clicked to tell YT "do not recommend this channel." But, you recall, the NBC broadcast team specifically highlighted that at the end of our game. No one talks about the bogus holding call that killed our first drive. No one talks about the bogus holding call on the KR (or P?) return for TD...both of which could have been equally impactful.

If we could get the national media talking about "A&M was one missed targeting call away from beating Miami" -- very plausible given the facts at hand -- it'd produce notable improvement in our treatment next year.

Guess whose shoulders need to bear that burden. Yep, Trev Alberts.

---

Would really like to see an AD call out bad officiating, manipulated CFP matches, etc. As long as seats are filled and 12th Man donations are coming in hand over fist, he might not say anything, but I do remain hopeful that Trev Alberts will be an outspoken advocate for our athletic teams and call out any negative influences.

Hehateme1 said:

---

I think all conferences should follow the lead of the ACC and broadcast the review discussion. Would help fans understand what the officials are looking at. It would also add a lot of transparency and accountability to the process.

---

That'd be great, might put Sankey and Semko out of a job.

This crew of officials and replay officials should be relieved of duty. One of their jobs is to protect the student athlete from situations just like this. Had this been Texas, tOSU, Georgia, Alabama or Michigan that would have been called. Had it been opposite teams in this situation, they would have reviewed the play and threw our defender out immediately.

Sick of this ***** The favoritism bull**** is a cancer.