Controversy Surrounds Targeting No-Call on Texas’ Michael Taaffe
As the College Football Playoff heats up, familiar debates over the targeting rule have once again taken center stage. The Texas Longhorns’ thrilling 39-31 double-overtime victory over Arizona State in the CFP quarterfinal has sparked heated discussions, with a controversial no-call on a potential targeting penalty drawing widespread attention.
At the heart of the controversy is a fourth-quarter hit delivered by Texas safety Michael Taaffe on Arizona State receiver Melquon Stovall. With under two minutes left in regulation, Taaffe and Stovall collided helmet-to-helmet as the receiver was brought to the ground. The play prompted an official review for targeting, but replay officials ultimately ruled that no penalty would be enforced, leaving fans, analysts, and experts divided.
The Rules Debate: Gene Steratore Weighs In
The no-call quickly became a talking point across college football, with former NFL referee and CBS Sports rules analyst Gene Steratore adding his voice to the discussion. According to Steratore, the play met the NCAA’s criteria for targeting under Rule 9-1-4.
“My phone has been burning up all morning,” Steratore said. “Yes, this should have been a flag for targeting in Texas vs. Arizona State. It meets all of the criteria of targeting.”
Had the officials called targeting, the consequences would have been significant. Taaffe would have been ejected from the game and required to sit out the first half of Texas’ next contest. Additionally, the penalty would have given Arizona State a crucial first down instead of forcing a punt, potentially altering the course of the game.
Consequences of the No-Call
Critics argue that the missed call may have had a tangible impact on the outcome. A targeting penalty would have allowed Arizona State to continue its drive, possibly moving into field goal range for a game-winning attempt. However, as Texas fans know all too well, even a favorable field position doesn’t guarantee success—especially under the high-pressure stakes of the CFP.
Despite the controversy, the game unfolded in dramatic fashion. Arizona State pushed the Longhorns to double overtime, but Texas ultimately prevailed. A 25-yard touchdown pass to Gunnar Helm and a game-ending interception by Andrew Mukuba sealed the victory, sending the Longhorns to the Cotton Bowl.
Moving Forward: Texas Prepares for Ohio State
While the targeting debate rages on, the Longhorns are focused on their upcoming semifinal matchup against the Ohio State Buckeyes in the Cotton Bowl. Scheduled for Friday, January 10, at 6:30 p.m. CT inside AT&T Stadium, the game promises to be another intense battle as Texas seeks to extend its playoff run.
The Larger Issue: Targeting Rules Under Scrutiny
This incident adds to ongoing discussions about the targeting rule and its inconsistent enforcement. Designed to protect players and reduce dangerous hits, the rule has often been criticized for unclear criteria and subjective interpretations by officials.
As college football continues to grow in popularity, controversies like this highlight the need for further clarity and consistency in officiating. Whether through enhanced training, stricter definitions, or technological advancements, addressing these issues will be crucial for maintaining the integrity of the game.
For now, however, the Longhorns are turning their attention to the next challenge, while the targeting debate lingers as yet another reminder of the rule’s contentious nature.
