ECU targeting suspension overturned
SIAP. ECU Linebacker Jack Powers' (A+ linebacker name, I'll give him that) suspension for being assessed a targeting penalty in the second half of our game has been overturned.
Live, it looked like clear-cut targeting to me. On the new scoreboards' instant replay, it looked like clear-cut targeting to me. Whatever the on-field official saw in review apparently made it look like targeting. But to the NCAA one day later, it was not targeting. Maybe someone who has a highlight handy can throw it up here and tell me why I'm wrong and the NCAA is right.
It's also apparent that ECU's coach and fans are pretty salty about the officiating. Like, Penn State after a Michigan game salty. Not accustomed to seeing a speed bump complaining so much about how the cars are driving over it, but that appears to be the case here.
September 7th, 2023 at 12:24 AM ^
Refs are required to hold the snap and allow the defense to switch if the offense switches.
September 7th, 2023 at 8:57 AM ^
True, but in the moment it seemed like Stewart (I think?) was really dogging it getting off the field. I don't think refs are obliged to hold the snap if a player isn't hustling, but I have no idea if that's actually in the rule book.
September 7th, 2023 at 6:04 PM ^
Regardless, when the ball was snapped we still had 12 men on the field. They are right that it was poorly officiated and slanted in our favor overall, but that shit was still targeting.
September 7th, 2023 at 5:57 AM ^
The ref on the over the LOS is looking right down the line at the top of the replay and nothing is in his way. The off angle replays aren’t better.
September 6th, 2023 at 11:14 PM ^
JJ wears a Free Harbaugh shirt
JJ gets a targeting call on him
ncaa overturned a targeting call on JJ
The ncaa is full of petty ass assholes
The ncaa does nothing but pick and choose who they want to go after
September 6th, 2023 at 11:51 PM ^
100%. Truth.
September 7th, 2023 at 5:29 AM ^
You just saved me the trouble of typing a long drawn out post. Much appreciated!
September 7th, 2023 at 7:38 AM ^
I’m not normally one to buy into conspiracy theories (incompetence is usually a more likely explanation), but if the shoe fits, the NCAA should wear it. I would love to hear some more noise about the NCAA and its ‘Bama alum trying to influence the outcome of games/seasons.
September 6th, 2023 at 11:28 PM ^
The ECU fans may have a gripe on our first TD. JJ was clearly past the line of scrimmage with the ball in his hand before he threw it.
The rest are just based on the Peacock crew being wrong about everything else.
September 7th, 2023 at 1:52 AM ^
Actually, as I understand the rule, JJ can be mostly over the line, and the ball can be over the line, as long as some part of his body, like the back edge of his heel, is on the line, it's a good play. The replay officials apparently did not see a gap between his foot and the line of scrimmage, which is why they let the touchdown stand.
Plus, they owed us one for the touchdown we scored against TCU that they called down at the 1.
September 7th, 2023 at 2:12 AM ^
If they owed us one, I don't want it wasted on that game.
September 7th, 2023 at 6:31 AM ^
Also not at the expense of JJ's health!
September 7th, 2023 at 6:22 AM ^
In order to properly judge this, you need a Ref or a camera looking straight down the LOS. You would think with all the ad revenue TV gets, they could afford to have an LOS camera. Anyway, the play stood on this basis....
September 7th, 2023 at 8:38 AM ^
I thought (or if they haven't, they should) implement cameras into the sticks (like they did to the endzone pylons) so that there's always a camera looking straight down the first down or LOS.
September 7th, 2023 at 10:30 AM ^
i've come to the conclusion that the ncaa doesn't want to overturn calls. it's beyond belief that they don't have a camera at the LOS, first down and goal lines. they are almost always slightly off so you can't definitively overturn something close.
September 7th, 2023 at 6:29 AM ^
I get the gripe that maybe it should've been flagged live, but people saying it was clearly or indisputably an illegal forward pass don't actually understand the rule. Assuming I was able to get the right rulebook online, the rule is:
A forward pass is illegal if:
a. It is thrown by a Team A player whose entire body is beyond the neutral zone when the ball is released.
Could it have been an illegal forward pass? Sure. But it's not clear from replay that JJ's heel was beyond the neutral zone and that's why it stood
September 7th, 2023 at 8:52 AM ^
The rule itself is bad. The ball should have to be released behind the line of scrimmage (the original rule was 5 yards behind the line, LOL). It’s just not fair on defenses to have a qb’s trailing heel allow him to release the ball a yard downfield.
But given the rule, the call itself was incredibly close in a way that would have almost required the kind of automated line mapping system that the EPL and FIFA use to determine offside. And that involves a multi camera system that just doesn’t make sense for a play that’s fairly rare.
September 7th, 2023 at 9:22 AM ^
I understand the rule. I'm absolutely convinced his entire body was beyond the neutral zone.
But also, it makes me laugh. If that call had gone against us this place would be apopleptic about how consistently the refs screw us. Same with the 12 men on the field no-call. When they go our way it's either "well, we're due," or, "it's not completely clear."
No, no, I take it back. Every referee is out to get us. I forgot.
September 7th, 2023 at 10:58 AM ^
I would absolutely believe his entire body was beyond the neutral zone if we had every camera angle known to man, but we do not apparently have indisputable evidence showing as much which is why it stood. You can't overturn the call on the field with what we can see
September 7th, 2023 at 11:08 AM ^
If that call had gone against us this place would be apopleptic about how consistently the refs screw us.
Stop. Just, stop. If you're going to hallucinate, leave us out of it.
September 6th, 2023 at 11:36 PM ^
NCAA wanted to hit the "free Harbaugh " culture with something meatier. "It is not about targeting" an NCAA spokesman lamented. The obvious just isn't! Damn these Yankees...oops!
September 6th, 2023 at 11:41 PM ^
Sure looked like targeting to me?
But can anyone explain why that Iowa player who earholed The Don in the 2021 B1G championship game didn’t get called for targeting? Because that was even more egregious IMO
September 7th, 2023 at 6:08 AM ^
you mean this one, where he throws an absolute dime TD pass and iowa's LB puts the crown of his helmet right on edwards' chin?
September 7th, 2023 at 12:58 AM ^
Hey ECU, in a game where the final was 30 - Sad Field Goal, was the officiating really a factor?
September 7th, 2023 at 2:22 AM ^
Well...yes? ECU will continue to play teams like Michigan on the road to open their season. So they should let the NCAA know and play to win future games. Also ECU seemed very well coached, and those coaches are building a resume for bigger jobs.
September 7th, 2023 at 2:22 AM ^
I'm still going with...yes.
September 7th, 2023 at 11:06 AM ^
Powers isn't trying to hit JJ at that point, he's falling due to #53(?) cutting his legs out from under him.
I'm going to agree with the retraction, even though I agree that it looked like targeting when watching live.
September 7th, 2023 at 12:18 PM ^
I have no idea what you watched, but that's not what I saw. He set his feet and launched upward, hitting JJ in the facemask and pushing his helmet halfway off his head.
September 7th, 2023 at 6:07 AM ^
Hilarious. Just get rid of the rule at this point.
September 7th, 2023 at 6:15 AM ^
ECU sent in 12 plays they didn't like and the NCAA came back and said the refs got 6 of them wrong, including the 12 man on the field and the JJ over the line plays
September 7th, 2023 at 7:31 AM ^
The 12-man was the correct no call: the refs should have never let the snap occur until the subbed player had left the field of play.
September 7th, 2023 at 6:20 AM ^
The head of officials for the entire NCAA deemed it was an incorrect call and it should not have been flagged on Saturday. There was no direct contact to the head/neck area of the Michigan quarterback.
wtf. I feel like Im taking crazy pills. Yeah this dude mightve gotten lucky that he happened to graze JJs shoulder on the way in but that hit was 100% exactly what we're trying to remove from the game. The dude blindly launched, leading with his helmet and ended up primarily hitting JJ in the head.
How are you looking at this and saying 'oh yeah that's not targetting'. This guy was going for a headshot
September 7th, 2023 at 7:47 AM ^
I'm not a big conspiracy theory guy but there is NO WAY in Hell anyone without an agenda can watch that play and state that the ECU player did NOT hit JJ in the head. It is absolutely crystal clear that the crown of the LBs helmet smacked right into McCarthy's head.
This really smacks of NCAA pettiness at UM/Harbaugh.
September 7th, 2023 at 9:25 AM ^
I'm with you, actually, but the commentators (including their so-called refereeing expert) missed it as well, so I don't think it's an NCAA thing. I think they bend over backwards not to find targeting, because forcing a player to miss a game is a pretty major penalty. But in this case ... well, I disagree with them.
But also, eh, who cares? Honestly, why do we all care so much whether this particular ECU misses the first half of his next game? Onward and upward!
September 7th, 2023 at 10:39 AM ^
hell, he even launched himself over a teammate so he could hit JJ head to head
September 7th, 2023 at 11:01 AM ^
They must be giving him credit for apparently grazing JJ's shoulder on the way in. But if the NCAA rules guy can look at that clip and say 'That's not targetting' then the rule is totally missing the point. He came in high leading with the crown of his helmet and hit JJ right in the head. That's the kind of hit this rule is supposed to be eliminating
September 7th, 2023 at 6:24 AM ^
I thought JJ was over the LOS on the 1st touchdown to #1 (Roman looks good in that number). That may be what they were upset about. Peacock sucks, but I did catch that the announcers thought it would be reversed.
September 7th, 2023 at 6:53 AM ^
That was the rare targeting that my friend who absolutely hates targeting thought should be a penalty and suspension.
September 7th, 2023 at 7:29 AM ^
Good.
Regardless of it it was "targetting" or not, no player should be ejected from a game for a *non-malicious* hit. Yes, situations occur where dangerous contact is made and penalties should be enforced for it (for some reason the ncaa is loth to use anything more than 15yrds or to threaten to take points off the board)... but to eject kids for simple hits during the course of normal gameplay (i.e. not throwing punches or taking "cheap shots") still seems wrong.
September 7th, 2023 at 7:50 AM ^
The ball was already released and he had the time to set his feet and lead with his head. Against a player that was already defenseless because he was releasing the ball and being hit low. The defender had zero chance to make a play on the ball, and there was zero chance JJ was going to advance the ball himself. It was malicious because there was nothing to be gained on the hit but a possible injury to JJ.
September 7th, 2023 at 10:58 AM ^
In *real-time*, how much time was there between release & hit? If that hit had been in a game 20-30 years ago, would it have even been called as a penalty or just considered as finishing out a play?
I am not arguing at all that it wasn't a penalty, but I think you are probably wrong to characterize it as *malicious* rather than just a physical hit that was mistimed and misdirected.
We have all seen truly *malicious* hits occur in games (remember the Sparty - Panushek maybe -that tried to take out our QBs legs from behind, several seconds after the play itself was whistled dead and even longer after the ball had left his hands?) - *that* is the type of behavior that should warrant ejection.
September 8th, 2023 at 10:12 AM ^
Well, when you engage in a vicious hit that is exactly the kind they are trying to remove from the game, it still seems malicious. He still could have put a big hit on (which still could have been considered late) without leading with his head. JJ was already being hit low. Yes, we are asking for some discretion from tacklers these days. Sorry if you have to let up from time to time, but he wasn't making a play there. He was trying to take JJ out of the game.
September 8th, 2023 at 5:56 PM ^
"Vicious" is an entirely subjective word, especially in the context of contact sports (not just football). Clooney put an absolute "vicious" hit on Vincent Smith and so did Dax Hill on Graham Mertz... yet both were perfectly clean and legal.
With the way these rules are parsed and officiated, the lines between legal & illegal hits (in terms of timings of fractions of a second) are rather arbitrary and difficult to control.
As Brian has pointed out, encouraging QBs to go into baseball-style slides is only making the matter worse, since the defending may already be in the air when the QB initiates the slide... thus preventing the defender from being able to sufficiently adjust while also leaving the QBs head dangerously exposed (a head-first dive would actually be safer).
The *point* is that a substantial portion (arguably the large majority) of elections we have observed since the inception of the targeting rule are not the most appropriate action. It is *highly noteworthy* that NFL - who's rules and regulations the ncaa keeps pushing to emulate over the years - does not employ an ejection mechanism for targeting (yet does use ejection for actual egregious actions such as fighting).
For reference, # of FBS targetting ejections by season (not complete since no one seems to want make this data very public):
2013: 0.04/game
2014: 0.09/game
2015: 0.14/game
2016: 0.17/game
2017: 0.26/game
2020: 0.27/game
September 7th, 2023 at 7:58 AM ^
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I have to state that I feel this is one of the worst takes I have ever seen put forth on this board.
Just my, equally valid, opinion.
September 7th, 2023 at 10:58 AM ^
See response above.
September 7th, 2023 at 8:19 AM ^
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Perhaps this is seen as fully blown conspiracy theorist but so be it:
Michigan is going to be up against it all year long. If we win the National Championship this year we will have really deserved it beyond the norm. I think we are going to get hosed in some bigger games and will hopefully be able to overcome it. The NCAA has it out for Jim and they also don’t want any team to bring down their precious SEC empire. I still believe this is why everything has went against Jim since he came back, he was seen as someone who could really take over college football and unseat the giant. They wanted and still want him gone.
September 7th, 2023 at 9:28 AM ^
This is bizarre. The NCAA's ruling here does not effect Michigan or Harbaugh in any way.
Fuck, I know how satisfying it is to be the victim, but if the NCAA were out to get us they would have instructed the referees to make calls against us during the game! Not allow them to make bad calls that help Michigan during the game, then after it's ended change them.
Jesus, guys. This decision by the NCAA allows an ECU player to take the field in the first half of his next game. It does not effect Michigan.
Relax.
September 7th, 2023 at 11:00 AM ^
Affect.
Sorry to be that guy but it was bolded so...
September 7th, 2023 at 8:26 AM ^
Would be nice to have those that made this decision to state why the call was wrong including reviewing the video as part of the explanation.