正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
ESPN rules analyst Bill Lemonnier, supporting a targeting call: "Definitely defenseless player. Strong hit to the head/neck area. This shouldn't take long." After review, there was no targeting. Lemonnier then explained why the refs reached that conclusion. 🏈🦓🎙️ #CFP
32 条评论
Incidental contact. Both were looking at ball and ran into each other
I was so confused the whole replay conversation, it looked clear to me like both were going for the ball and inadvertently knocked heads. They never even considered it or brought it up, even after the call. Terrible coverage
Not targeting, just two guys running opposite directions colliding head first. Defender was looking at/going for ball just like receiver.
announcers jumping the gun again lol refs nailed it
Bill Lemonnier is really making a name for himself
They would be better off asking the opinion of a dude in the last row of the upper deck who is at least a 6 pack in
Let’s be real, the rules analysts bring nothing to the game
The next time Bill Lemonier is correct it will be the first 🤦♂️
It was a clear targeting penalty then he had to spin and justify the refs call.
Let’s stop with the “rules experts”. Someone do something
He's 77 and hasn't officiated in 10 yrs
ESPN’s SEC favoritism has made this hard to watch.
He's such a fucking clown. All rules analysts are.
Will be interesting to see if Miami gets hosed. Yep confirmed
Can we just get these retired jackasses off the air? Not one fan needs an extra official guessing what the actual officials are going to call after a review. 🙄🙄
It’s like the rules ANALyst wasn’t watching the game and just said a general statement.
They tried to keep old miss in the game so hard! 😂
I hate that a player gets ejected for targeting too. Give the 15 yards. But ejected. Dumb.
This is the dumbest idea ever. And tonight might bring it to an end. Asking these guys to weigh in before the call is made is literally revealing how subjective any penalty is. End this practice immediately.
I agree with the ruling..they collided...he didn't lower his head and target the reciever. COLLEGE DOES IT BETTER THEN THE NFL. WHY IS THAT
Weather forecasters are right more than Lemonnier.
I thought the defensive player was making a play for the ball and got hit on the side of his helmet. No penalty. Rules analysts should have picked it up. Bad call in the booth.
He wasn’t that good as a Big Ten official, and that was decades ago.
Yet, the slide away from the helmet on Lucas is??? Classic officiating against Miami
He was awful. His a mouthpiece for disney and espn. He got the call to back the cheating refs publicly
I’ve always said the “rules analysts” are just referees PR team
pathetic
He was wrong on every call they asked him about lol
If the player leaves their feet to launch themselves at an opponent If the player crouches before making a tackle to create maximum force If the player leads with their helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact the head or neck area of an opposing player If the player lowers their head before making a tackle and makes forcible contact with the crown of the helmet The defender hit first with his head he was not vertical -paragraph in bold applies -targeting
The rules official was just riding the fence……give us your opinion, but he went with the on field officials even when it was overturned when he said it was targeting at first.
This reverse call almost swung the entire game. Instead of 1st down inside the 30, and likely 6-0 or even 10-0, miami punts a few plays later and ole miss scores to go up 7-3. That’s a 10 point swing! BS to pick up the flag, and even more BS on the explanation.
He realized there was no “indicator,” whatever the shit that means. The targeting rule is a disaster and needs to be thrown in the trashcan.
![Scott Van Pelt: “I don’t care who it is. That’s targeting 100 times out of 100. It wasn’t [called] in this case.” Dusty Dvoracek: “I thought it was targeting in the moment. I picked up the phone, made a few phone calls. I talked to Bill Lemonnier, who I think is one of the absolute best, works for us at ESPN/ABC as a rules expert, and he said verbatim: ‘It’s a defenseless player, there was an upwards thrust indicator, forceable contact to the head or neck area. It’s targeting.’”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1874658425709154347/amplify_video_thumb/1874658334881513472/img/sMsoh7yz17goZiqv.jpg)
![The targeting foul against Zack Orr of NCC Football has been overturned, and he will be eligible to start in Saturday's #d3fb National Semifinal vs. Susquehanna Football at 3:30pm EST / 2:30pm CST. I spoke with Steve Shaw, the NCAA's National Coordinator of Officials, about the overturn this morning. Note that the provision in question is whether or not Springfield Football QB Drew Heenan qualified under the rules as a "defenseless player," as the following is one such definition in the NCAA Football Rulebook: "A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped." If a defenseless player is hit in the neck or head region by an opponent, then targeting is a proper call under the rules. Steve said: “We’re very clear that he's not defenseless until he is down. And if you go back and look at the video on the play…he's wrapped up and he's going down. And the contact is with [the] runner just as he's going to the ground. So he really has not transitioned to a defenseless player yet. You know, you can make the argument that, well, if he's wrapped up, he's defenseless and he can't really defend himself. But from a replay perspective, we needed a bright line that that was not a judgment, but a bright line. And that is, [he] has to be down, considered down before he's defenseless….He's just beginning to go down and be down. And so we wouldn't consider him down at the time that he's hit. And there's no crown of the helmet involved. The helmet is clearly to the side. And so, from a replay perspective, rules are very clear. You've got to be able to confirm all aspects of targeting for it to be targeting. You couldn't confirm that he was down and then hit. So we didn't give him defenseless status....And that's why the targeting was overturned.” Steve also taught me about something that is important. While regular replay reviews can come out as "confirmed," "overturned," or "stands" (which means that there is not conclusive evidence to overturn, but there isn't a full confirmation of the original call either), targeting calls do not have a "stands" option when they are reviewed. In other words, they are viewed anew and either every element necessary for targeting must be confirmed, or it is overturned. Think of it as being innocent until proven guilty in the review process for targeting. In this case, he was clear to underscore that the elements could have been argued to have existed, but it would have, at best, been a "call stands" decision, which is not sufficient to uphold a targeting call. Steve also expressed the hopes that the instant replay model that has been developed and used in Division 2 will become more utilized in Division 3, related to more-universal instant replay using a coaches' challenge approach (except for targeting), much like we saw in the Centennial Conference this year. He understands the challenges, but he also feels that having two HD camera angles plus the normal web stream (basically at least three cameras) is sufficient to embrace the needs of instant replay. He is not in favor of a D1 type of replay at the lower levels because of the desire to not have constant game interruptions and more technological challenges at the lower levels than we see at D1 -- he stressed his support of a coaches' challenge system in our conversation multiple times. In The (D3FB) Huddle and I give thanks to Steve for his transparency, which is always on display in the CFO training videos he releases on YouTube. I always learn something when I watch his videos, and today was no different in our conversation.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1869083747989033032/ext_tw_video_thumb/1869077699739738112/pu/img/lKNKi4pravXtVqn6.jpg)
