A memorable 18 hours for Cal’s football program began Saturday at dawn with an epic ESPN ‘College GameDay’ broadcast from Memorial Glade and ended before midnight with an excruciating loss to Miami in Memorial Stadium.
The Bears squandered a 25-point lead in the second half and missed their chance to upset the Hurricanes.
Then again, many fans watching the riveting fourth quarter might take issue with the word squandered.
They probably would prefer the term hosed to describe what happened to the Bears during the most controversial sequence: A crushing hit on Cal quarterback Fernando Mendoza by Miami linebacker Wesley Bissainthe near midfield that looked like targeting based on the helmet-to-helmet contact that led to Mendoza briefly leaving the game.
Had targeting been called, the Bears would have been awarded first down in Miami territory with a six-point lead and less than two minutes remaining.
But ACC officials declined to assess a penalty following the review process, and Cal was forced to punt. The Hurricanes took over with 1:42 left and promptly drove 92 yards in six plays for the winning touchdown.
Asked to comment on the controversial non-call after the game, Bears coach Justin Wilcox said: “I’m not going to talk about that.”
He wasn’t alone. In response to an inquiry from the Hotline, an ACC spokesperson provided the targeting language from the rulebook but would not expand on the specifics of the play.
Plenty of observers weighed in, however.
“I do not know by the definition of the rulebook, how that is not targeting,” ESPN analyst Brock Osweiler said on the broadcast after seeing the replay.
“I’m not saying Wesley Bissainthe did that intentionally, I think he’s just reacting, playing good, hard, tough football, but by definition, that is 100% targeting.”
Or was it?
The Hotline sought clarity on the situation using 1) the NCAA rulebook, 2) our understanding of the ACC’s replay review process and 3) a frame-by-frame look at the collision using ESPN’s video.
Here’s the bottom line up top, in our estimation: The officials could not determine conclusively that targeting occurred.
Also, the situation was more complicated than it might have appeared because there are two types of targeting infractions.
The most common involves defenseless players — a receiver attempting to make a catch across the middle, for example, or a quarterback delivering the ball while exposed in the pocket.
Targeting against a defenseless player is NCAA rule 9-1-4 and defined in this manner: “No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.”
But Mendoza was not defenseless; he had left the pocket and become a runner. And the threshold for targeting is different when runners are involved.
NCAA rule 9-1-3, which addresses targeting on players who are not defenseless, states the following:
“No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of …read more
Source:: The Mercury News – Entertainment
