Inadvertent Whistle on the ECU Targeting Call

[charsibb]

Watching the vid, and it's pretty clear it's targeting. It's also pretty clear that it was a clean interception, not an incomplete.

Now, the targeting occurred before the interception (and caused it to be possible), so I could make a case for nullifying the interception, but I could also make a case for giving the ball to ECU, minus 15 yards for targeting.

The ref's mic was acting up, but he said, "By rule, the Inadvertent Whistle will be disregarded, since it was an accepted foul"

WTF was he talking about here?

[JupiterBull]

1 hour ago, charsibb said:

Watching the vid, and it's pretty clear it's targeting. It's also pretty clear that it was a clean interception, not an incomplete.

Now, the targeting occurred before the interception (and caused it to be possible), so I could make a case for nullifying the interception, but I could also make a case for giving the ball to ECU, minus 15 yards for targeting.

The ref's mic was acting up, but he said, "By rule, the Inadvertent Whistle will be disregarded, since it was an accepted foul"

WTF was he talking about here?

No clue, as we in the stands were confused (and the every 5th word mic issues made it harder).  I was afraid it'd be ECU ball, too, as even watching live you could see it was a clean, but freaky, INT.

Frankly, I'm thrilled Adams got up...and since we scored the next play, that was clearly one of the bigger calls for the day.

[Orlando Bull]

The foul occurred before ECU officially took possession. No way it could have been their ball. I don't think it was ever in doubt that if they upheld the penalty, it would be our ball. 

[NewEnglandBull]

ESPN twitter actually showed the interception but said it did not count. 

[BullyPulpit]

They has blown the whistle inadvertently thinking it was an incomplete pass.  Therefore,  the play would be dead and ECU would be credited with an interception and a touchback.  

[Apis Bull]

1 hour ago, BullyPulpit said:

They has blown the whistle inadvertently thinking it was an incomplete pass.  Therefore,  the play would be dead and ECU would be credited with an interception and a touchback.  

If not for the targetting

[charsibb]

So if the targeting had been overruled by the booth, it would have been ECU ball at the 20?

 

[Boomer]

I know that if targeting is overruled, you can still have the unsportsmanlike penalty (like a late hit on the quarterback) that will still apply the 15 yards, but in this case I don't think there was any other penalty so it sounds as though ECU would have it on their 20.

[IBulleve]

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression a targeting call can't be overturned in regard to the 15 yard penalty assessed. The review is simply about the ejection of the player 

Edited October 11, 2016 by IBulleve

[Apis Bull]

13 minutes ago, IBulleve said:

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression a targeting call can't be overturned in regard to the 15 yard penalty assessed. The review is simply about the ejection of the player 

No, that was changed a couple of years ago.  The replay official can overturn the ejection and the targeting foul.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/10562246/teams-no-longer-penalized-overturned-targeting-call