Kenny Dillingham on Michael Taaffe no-call: ‘I don’t know what targeting is’

Multiple officiating experts argued that the Big Ten referee made a critical mistake.

ATLANTA — One of the most important plays of the Peach Bowl between the Texas Longhorns and Arizona State Sun Devils on Wednesday at Mercedes-Benz Stadium involved arguably the most subjective determination in football — whether Texas safety Michael Taaffe committed a targeting penalty when he objectively made helmet-to-helmet contact with Arizona State wide receiver Melquan Stovall on a 10-yard catch on a 3rd and 15.

With the game tied at 24-24 and 1:03 remaining in the fourth quarter, the Sun Devils faced the critical third down in their own territory trying to mount the game-winning drive after a missed 48-yard, go-ahead field-goal attempt by Longhorns kicker Bert Auburn.

As Stovall lay motionless on the artificial turf in Atlanta, the officials decided to review the play even though a flag wasn’t immediately thrown on the play. After review, the penalty was not assessed against Taaffe and the Sun Devils had to punt from near midfield, leaving Arizona State head coach Kenny Dillingham furious and seeking an explanation.

ESPN rules analyst Matt Austin seemed to agree with Dillingham as the play was under review.

“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,” Austin said on the broadcast. “I would not be surprised if this is called targeting from the booth.”

Terry McAulay, the NBC rules analyst whose officiating career began in 1976 and continued in college and the NFL until 2017, made a more unequivocal statement about the play.

Indeed, the NCAA rulebook on defenseless receivers seems to support McAulay’s assertion:

A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

While Taaffe clearly didn’t “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,” Stovall did appear to be defenseless, unable to protect himself as he made the reception and taking a big blow to the head as a result.

Even in the post-game press conference, the play left Dillingham struggling to understand the rule and how it is enforced.

“In terms of the targeting, I mean, I’m going to be honest — I don’t know what targeting is,” Dillingham said.

While acknowledging the difficulties of commenting on targeting when the officiating around it is so subjective and confusing, Dillingham pivoted to the original intent around implementing it in the first place.

“I don’t want to comment on something that I have to get a better grasp of what it is just because it’s so… you know, I just don’t quite understand it. I do want to protect the players, though, so whatever rules that are put in place to protect the players, I’m all about,” Dillingham said.

Ultimately, litigating whether or not Taaffe could justifiably avoid the hit deflects from the core issue of protecting defenseless players from dangerous contact to the head or neck area.

It’s also impossible to ignore the potential implications had the officials ruled it targeting — 15 yards would have given Arizona State the ball at the Texas 37-yard line with plenty of time to score the game-winning points.

And while Sun Devils kicker Ian Hershey is unreliable, going just 3-of-8 this season from 30-plus yards with a long of 47 yards, the Longhorns defense was fatigued and reeling from big plays that produced two critical touchdowns in the fourth quarter. Given the field position and a fresh set of downs, it’s hard to argue against the possibility of Arizona State scoring a touchdown in that situation.

Those realities will assuredly make the subjective and controversial decision by Big Ten referee Larry Smith one that will long live in infamy for Dillingham, his team, and the Sun Devil fanbase.