The Arizona State-Texas controversy: Our deep dive into the targeting no-call that changed the game

The best game of the College Football Playoff quarterfinals produced the most controversial officiating call.

Or non-call, as it was.

Peach Bowl officials declined to assess a targeting penalty on Texas safety Michael Taaffe after he made helmet-to-helmet contact with Arizona State receiver Melquan Stovall following a catch in the middle of the field.

The collision occurred during a critical sequence, with ASU facing third-and-15 from its own 38-yard line.

The completion went for only 10 yards.

Less than two minutes remained.

The score was tied.

Had replay officials confirmed targeting on Taaffe, the Sun Devils would have been awarded a first down in Texas territory just outside field-goal range.

With no penalty assessed, the Sun Devils were forced to punt and eventually lost 39-31 in double overtime.

Outrage and confusion ensued in equal amounts, with scores of fans, media members and former players taking to social media to declare the collision a classic example of targeting.

Arizona State coach Kenny Dillingham was frustrated, saying after the game: “I’m going to be honest, I don’t know what targeting is.”

The Hotline has reported on targeting controversies extensively over the years, most recently with the inflammatory non-call in the final minutes of the Cal-Miami game.

We reviewed the Stovall-Taaffe collision several times at both normal speed and in slow motion, then spent days seeking an explanation from the involved parties and experts across the football landscape.

The first key to decoding any targeting controversy is to understand the different applications of the rule: One is for defenseless players; the other, for ballcarriers who are not deemed defenseless.

— 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 the helmet.”

Taaffe, the Texas safety, did not make contact with Stovall using the 6-inch radius at the apex of his helmet. But it doesn’t matter, because Stovall was not considered a ballcarrier in that situation.

He had just caught the pass and turned his head toward the defender. He was absolutely a defenseless player.

— NCAA rule 9-1-14 addresses the circumstances involved in the Stovall-Taaffe collision:

“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.”

Clearly, Taaffe hit Stovall with his helmet.

And clearly, he made contact with Stovall’s head.

The only aspect of the rule that could have been considered subjective by Peach Bowl officials was the forcible contact clause.

To us, it was indisputable: The wallop came when the front of Taaffe’s helmet collided with the front of Stovall’s helmet.

“Forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet.”

Unfortunately, ESPN’s broadcasters, Joe Tessitore (play-by-play) and Jesse Palmer (analyst), completely whiffed on the situation, offering zero insight before or after the official review.

ESPN’s rules analyst, Matt Austin, uttered a brief assessment: “We definitely have a defenseless receiver, and just as he’s turning after catching the ball, he gets hit in the head by the defender. So I would not be surprised if this is called targeting from the booth.”

And that was it from ESPN.

Others were not quiet.

NFL rules analyst Terry McAulay called the hit “Clearly a targeting foul” immediately after the play on the social media platform X, then followed up with more context:

“1. He took aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

“2. He led with his head.

“3. He made forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless receiver using his helmet.
“That’s the rule.”

Gene Steratore, the CBS rules analyst, offered the following critique on X the next morning (along with a replay of the collision):

“My phone has been burning up all morning. Yes, this should have been a flag for targeting in #TEXvsASU. It meets all of the criteria of targeting (Rule 9-1-4).”

So why wasn’t it called?

Unfortunately, and for reasons we cannot explain, there was no pool reporter assigned to ask the officials for comment after the game. (The Hotline attended the Rose Bowl, not the Peach Bowl.)

Over the ensuing days, we sought insight from the involved parties:

— We asked the Sun Devils if they had received additional explanation. They politely declined to comment (perhaps with fists clenched and smoke billowing from their nostrils).

— We asked the Big 12 for clarity, as well. The conference released a statement from commissioner Brett Yormark on Thursday morning in which he applauded ASU’s performance, then addressed the targeting call itself:

“As a member of the College Football Playoff management committee, I have had multiple discussions seeking clarity surrounding the targeting call on Arizona State’s final drive of the 4th quarter with Richard Clark. Moving forward, we need to address CFP officiating to ensure national standards are developed. These standards will be crucial to the CFP’s future, and I look forward to discussing them with my fellow committee members when we meet next.”

(Yormark is right about the national standards but had no details to offer on the Peach Bowl play.)

— We also asked the Big Ten, which provided the officials with Larry Smith as the crew chief. The replay official, Brian Brown, was also from the Big Ten (and previously worked in the Pac-12).

Brown would have followed protocol and consulted with the Big Ten command center on the play. Apparently, all the key voices determined there was no targeting.

On Friday, the Hotline sought comment from the conference office and received the following response: “Wouldn’t expect anything. We would have left any public comment to the traditional pool reporter process on site.”

— We reached out to a college football analyst who has followed the evolution of the targeting penalty over the years.

His response: “1. He’s defenseless. 2. There was forcible contact to the head/neck area. It was targeting … They can always fall back on saying it wasn’t forcible, as that really is the only subjective element of that call.”

— One glimmer of hope for an explanation came courtesy of Football Zebras, a website that tracks officiating at the NFL and college levels.

On its live blog from the Peach Bowl, Football Zebras noted: “While we weren’t in the replay booth, the college officials we discussed the play with did not feel a clear indicator of targeting was there, which is likely why replay did not apply a targeting penalty to this play.”

We reached out to the site for more details and received no response.

But the published explanation — that a clear indicator of targeting wasn’t visible — could only mean one thing: The officials contacted by Football Zebras did not see indisputable evidence of forcible contact from the front of Taaffe’s helmet to the front of Stovall’s helmet.

After all, that is the only subjective component to the collision. We know Taaffe struck a defenseless receiver in the head or neck area. But if the contact wasn’t deemed forcible by the replay official (and the Big Ten’s command center), there was no penalty to assess.

It sure looked like forcible contact to us.

And the Dillingham.

And to Steratore.

And to McAulay.

That said, the non-call did not directly lead to ASU’s loss. (The Sun Devils surrendered a 28-yard, game-tying touchdown pass on fourth down in the first overtime.)

Also, it wasn’t the only egregious mistake of the game:

— The officials missed a clear blindside block by the Longhorns that led to their punt return touchdown in the first quarter.

— They also allowed an ASU touchdown to stand even though tailback Cam Skattebo was given a clear assist over the goalline by an offensive lineman.

(The late-game hit by ASU defensive back Keith Abney II on Texas receiver Isaiah Bond wasn’t as clear.)

McAulay, the NFL rules analyst, weighed in via X:

“I watched Big Ten officiating almost every Saturday night and believe they are as good, if not better, than any staff in college football. Unfortunately, this was a tough game for them.”

He also published a lengthy commentary on X in which he noted the “failure to properly apply the targeting rule as written has been an ongoing issue for every major Conference the entire 2024 season.”

After several paragraphs of context and background information, he concluded with this:

“Ultimately, all of this created the perfect storm that allowed the Big Ten Command Center to come up with some reason to make the decision that there was no targeting on the play in Texas/ASU, although I’m still struggling to figure out what that reason might be.”

So are we, Terry.

So are we.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline