Just like how getting separated from Kevin became a McCallister family travel tradition, an article about officiating decisions is becoming a tradition on this site following Big Game. The McCallisters didn’t want to get separated from Kevin, but they did. I in turn didn’t intend to write about another officiating decision after Big Game and yet given what happened to Stanford fifth year linebacker Tristan Sinclair, I have to once again do so.
For those that didn’t watch the game, with 6:32 to go in the 3rd quarter against Cal on Saturday, Sinclair got called for targeting when he laid a nasty hit on Cal quarterback Fernando Mendoza. Mendoza went down hard and the ball popped out and was scooped up by Stanford, though video review would have confirmed that he was down prior to losing the ball. Cal was leading 14-6 at the time. The call on the field following the hit was targeting and upon review, the officials confirmed the targeting call, ejecting Sinclair from the game. Because the targeting occurred in the second half, Sinclair also was required to sit out the first half of Stanford’s next game against Notre Dame this coming Saturday.
Upon watching the hit, I initially thought targeting was not the correct call, but an explanation I got indicated that Sinclair was called for targeting because he appeared to lead with his head into Mendoza. At the same time, I was also told that Mendoza did appear to lower his head, hence the gray area. When looking at the replay once more, it didn’t look like Sinclair hit Mendoza’s helmet at all. It looked like helmet to shoulder pad if the helmet hit him at all and if anything, it might have just been shoulder pad to shoulder pad. But not being an officiating expert, I wasn’t going to make a big stink about the call. Nor was I going to even write about it in my recap beyond acknowledging the targeting call. I trusted that the officials got it right because that's their job.
However, that all changed on Monday when Sinclair posted on his Instagram that he had won his appeal to the NCAA, which means he’ll be able to play against the Irish on Saturday without having to sit out the first half. Given that he has won his appeal and is able to play the entire game against Notre Dame, it’s newsworthy because his presence makes a big difference for the Stanford defense. Having him back on Saturday for the entire game should help a lot.
Going back to the game itself, Cal went on to win by a final score of 27-15 and on the same drive that Mendoza was hit, the result was a rushing touchdown by running back Jaydn Ott. Getting those 15 yards certainly helped the drive.
The targeting call on Sinclair was a hot topic of conversation immediately after the game and it’s reignited conversation once more with news that he has won his appeal. Stanford fans initially bemoaned the call; Cal fans said it was the right call. Which is what you’d expect from both fan bases. Upon the appeal, Stanford fans are even more outraged because one of their top players got ejected from the game unjustly while Cal fans are shrugging it off, trying to say it wasn’t that big of a deal. I’ll do my best to provide as fair and objective of a take on all this.
First off, Sinclair winning his appeal means the refs got it wrong. It’s that simple. While it looked like a gray area hit to me and many others, it’s the officials’ job to know what constitutes targeting and what doesn’t. Especially since they actually reviewed it.
“So yeah, we put in an appeal and the officials stated that it was not targeting, that it was incorrect, and so he will be able to play in the first half against Notre Dame,” Stanford head coach Troy Taylor said on Tuesday about Sinclair winning his appeal. “My reaction is you know, it was a crucial play obviously and disappointed they didn't get it right, but you know, people make mistakes and we move on.”
Given the severity of the call in terms of it leading to ejection and so forth, this is a call you want to get right. If you get this wrong, it’s unfair to the team that loses the player and it’s also just unfair to the player. Sinclair got robbed of playing a full Big Game because of this. Even if it didn’t change the outcome of the game itself, the fact that it’s unfair to Sinclair in and of itself is why this matters. It’s good that he won his appeal and that he’ll be able to play the entire game against Notre Dame, but it still doesn’t undo the fact that he was unjustly ejected.
Sinclair's dad played at Stanford and his mom went to Cal. The rivalry runs deep in his family and this was his final Big Game at Stanford Stadium. He has poured so much into the Stanford program. To have him robbed of a full Big Game experience because the refs couldn't properly identify targeting is disappointing.
Secondly, I don’t think this call affected the outcome of the game itself. Cal played the better game and came in as the favorite to win. That’s why I picked Cal in my preview. What solidifies this for me is that Mendoza did not fumble the ball. Had he actually fumbled it, that would have been different because then you are talking about Stanford getting the ball back down 14-6 as opposed to Cal keeping the ball and eventually scoring a touchdown to lead 21-6. That’s a seven point swing right there and if Stanford goes on to score even a field goal that’s a 10 points swing.
But since it wouldn’t have been a fumble, Stanford can’t say a possession was taken away from them. And then they still should have stopped Ott in the end. This becomes tantamount to a pass interference call that was called wrong. Those aren’t fair either, but they do happen. And you have to still find ways to make a stop. It’s part of the game. It should also be noted that the hit occurred on a 1st down. If that had happened on a 3rd down, that would be a different story.
Now, having said that, Sinclair is a really important player for the Stanford defense. He was playing the best of anyone on their defense up to that point. So while I don't think it would have changed the outcome had he been able to stay in the game, that still doesn't make it any less of an injustice. You want the best players to be able to play.
Third, the targeting call actually seemed to fire up Stanford a bit. It got their juices going and lit a fire in them that they needed. So in a weird way, it actually helped Stanford. They were playing poorly all game long and that bad targeting call gave them something to rally around. So, that was one positive out of this for Stanford.
“So obviously a really disappointing call and you know them overturning it we wish that they would have overturned it immediately,” Stanford fifth year linebacker Spencer Jorgensen said of the call. “You know, I mean Tristan played for one half and was defensive player of the game in my opinion. You know, still leading tackler he laid all the best hits. So definitely initially all of our reaction was disappointment to see our, you know, our defensive leader guy that just has absolutely played his heart out, you know for 11 games, to see him removed from the game like that, that hurt all of us I think. But I think it also gave us an energy. You know, like we got to go out and play for Trist. He doesn't get to be here for this second half.
“And then just coming into this week we found out real quick that it was overturned you know and just we're all stoked. You know, immediately in the group chats everybody's just turning up because we know you know our guy is back: They freed our boy!
“So yeah, I think just knowing that the guy that you know, we need his leadership and we're going to be able to win this game on Saturday and a large part of that is going to be because we have Tristan Sinclair back on the defensive side of the ball. So just all around positive, you know, we're stoked to have him back out of there and like I said a little disappointment that he had to miss a half of the Big Game in his fifth year, but at the end of the day, you know, the right call was made at least in the follow up. So we're happy to see that.”
Fourth, I do think there needs to be conversations about how much players are penalized for targeting. During Tuesday's weekly press conference, Taylor was asked about this and whether or not he felt punishment of ejection was too severe. Especially given Sinclair hadn't been called for targeting all season up to that point.
“You're right because in retrospect you know, it's great that he can play in the first half against Notre Dame, but we can't get him coming back from and we can't get the yardage back and the first down and all that,” Taylor said. “I mean I think they are adjusting, they've tried to adjust how they do targeting. It's, I think most people are very confused, me being one of those on what is targeting and what is not. So like when I see it I'm just like, you know I think some of them are really clear and then some of them you know, we're just not, we're not sure.
“I mean sometimes it seems like it's the reaction of the player you hit, that does play a role. They would probably tell you that's not the case, but I think using common sense, I think that seems to happen. But yeah, I mean, listen, I'm all for player safety so whatever helps you know the defenseless players rule I think is fantastic and a lot of people didn't like that. I've always thought that we should you know protect people that don't see the hit coming because you can still wall them off.
“I think all those rules that make the game safer are great. Just the clarity and some things are you know missing when targeting and I'm not alone in that. It's frustrating but I do think generally speaking they're trying to get it right for player safety. But I think you're right, I mean the player missing out on the whole half and then you find out later that it was not the correct call, it's a pretty big deal.”
To wrap this all up, if I was Tristan Sinclair, I would be pretty upset. He got tossed for doing nothing more than laying a hard hit on the quarterback. That’s what his job is. You might not like it, but that’s football. If you play defense you are taught to hit hard and clean. That’s exactly what he did. While I don’t think it impacted the outcome of the game, it’s still disappointing that the officials’ inability to correctly identify targeting robbed him of a full Big Game experience in front of the home crowd. Hopefully this will lead to more discussions in officiating meetings about what targeting is so as to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.
“The worst form of injustice is pretended justice.”-Plato
CardinalSportsReport.com on Facebook & X (Twitter): @StanfordRivals
Ben Parker on Facebook, Instagram, & X (Twitter): @slamdunk406
Email: slamdunk406@yahoo.com
