Scott Van Pelt reacts to controversial no-call for targeting in Peach Bowl

A hit that was reviewed for targeting from a Texas defender to an Arizona State player sparked controversy in the final minute of the Peach Bowl on Wednesday.

The play saw ASU quarterback Sam Leavitt connect with wide receiver Melquan Stovall for a 10-yard gain on 3rd down. Texas defensive back Michael Taaffe was there to meet him immediately, and the two appeared to collide helmet-to-helmet.

After review, no targeting was found on the play. In turn, many took to social media to voice their opinions on the controversial no-call.

Get your team’s official College Football Playoff watch from AXIA by CLICKING HERE: “Watches that tell so much more than time”

ESPN’s Scott Van Pelt threw his two cents into the mix following the Sun Devils loss, too.

“That’s targeting 100 times out of 100,” Van Pelt said on SportsCenter following New Year’s Day’s slate of playoff games. He said he was surprised when the call was made on the field.

"That's targeting a hundred times out of a hundred. It wasn't in this case."

Scott Van Pelt on the controversial non-targeting call late in the Arizona State-Texas game. pic.twitter.com/2e7tFO64O6

— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) January 2, 2025

Van Pelt was joined by his ESPN colleague Dusty Dvoracek, who revealed that he did some research of his own after the hit. He phoned Bill LeMonnier, a former college football official and now a rules analyst for ESPN, who agreed with both men in that the hit should have resulted in targeting.

According to Dvoracek, LeMonnier told him Stovall was an defenseless player and that Taaffe used an upward thrust indicator with forceful contact to the head or neck area. To them, it’s targeting.

Van Pelt believes there is a gray area, however. He didn’t believe there was any “intent” to cause any harm to the Arizona State wide receiver. However, Dvoracek argued that Stovall should have been protected due to the contact to the head and neck area as a defenseless player.

Regardless, the penalty could have had massive implications on the rest of the game. The game was stopped to review that penalty with 1:08 left in regulation. If Arizona State would have gotten the call, they would have had the ball on Texas’ side of the field with over a minute left.

Instead, it took two overtimes to declare Texas the winner.

“I think more than one thing can be true simultaneously,” Van Pelt continued. “Often is the case, it would have been a bummer for a game to end on a penalty, because that’s just as much of a bummer for that to happen. But if it’s a penalty, it’s a penalty.

“I think cosmically, the fact that in the end, it does end up in overtime, and then both teams had opportunities to win it. All things being considered, that felt like the appropriate way for this game to end — not on a call or a non-call. Arizona State had the opportunity, the just didn’t get the stop.”

Now, Texas is headed to the Cotton Bowl where they’ll take on Ohio State on Jan. 10.