The Peach Bowl referee declined to call a targeting penalty late in the fourth quarter for a helmet-to-helmet hit by Texas safety Michael Taaffe that could’ve given Arizona State a chance to kick a winning field goal in the College Football Playoff semifinal game.
This highly disputed call has raised more questions about the targeting rule and its inconsistent application in college football. The rule, which is intended to protect players from head injuries, has been a topic of debate among coaches, players, and fans due to its subjective nature and the varying degrees of severity in which it is enforced.
In the case of the Peach Bowl, the no-call on the targeting penalty has sparked outrage among Arizona State fans, who feel that the call would have significantly altered the outcome of the game. With the extra yardage and first down, Arizona State could have potentially kicked a game-winning field goal, changing the course of the game and possibly the trajectory of their season.
However, Texas fans argue that the hit, although helmet-to-helmet, was not malicious and did not warrant a targeting penalty. They point out that the referee’s decision not to throw a flag was correct, given the context of the play and the speed at which it occurred.
The controversy surrounding the targeting rule is not new, as it has been a source of contention throughout the college football season. The rule, which is designed to reduce the risk of head injuries, has been criticized for being overly broad and open to interpretation. While some argue that the rule is necessary to protect player safety, others believe that it is too restrictive and can have an unfair impact on the outcome of games.
As the college football season comes to a close, the debate over the targeting rule is likely to continue. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) will likely review the rule and its application, with the goal of finding a balance between player safety and fair play. Until then, the controversy surrounding the Peach Bowl no-call will serve as a reminder of the challenges and complexities of enforcing the targeting rule in college football.