ND @ Texas Targeting or not?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by scrounge

This was an egregious miss IMO.

I disagree that it is egregious. If the player is a little higher he hits him in the chest. That is why I am conflicted because other than the hardness of the hit, I am not sure what the defender is to do. He does not hit him late at all, he hits him right when the ball arrives. Again, I am OK if they had called this, but I think this is a hole in the rule for what the defenders are supposed to do.

I personally had a much similar hit without the ball and it was not supported by video in a D3 game and there was more head movement on impact in my play. I think the only reason this was really considered a foul was because the player got hurt as a result, which is not the only reason we should have considered a foul here in my opinion. I do support the call if that is what they want, but tough at fast speed considering that he does not do the typical indicators that were are asked to look for.

Peace

[The Roamin' Umpire]

So, our guidance (NFHS rules) is that, even without targeting, hits like this on a defenseless player where the defender is clearly looking to make a hit and not a tackle should be called as a PF for unnecessary roughness. Does this not exist in NCAA?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by The Roamin' Umpire

So, our guidance (NFHS rules) is that, even without targeting, hits like this on a defenseless player where the defender is clearly looking to make a hit and not a tackle should be called as a PF for unnecessary roughness. Does this not exist in NCAA?

This was not an unnecessary hit at all IMO. He hit him as the ball was coming and actually jarred the ball lose. I would only call this targeting in a NF game.

Peace

[OKREF]

It for sure wasn't a PF for hitting a defenseless player. Really close on targeting but the receiver is moving downwards, I think from contact from behind( I haven't rewatched video), and UT player turns his body so he doesn't hit him with his head. There is no launch, he doesn't crouch and lunge upwards, no lowering of head, and I don't think he leads with the helmet. The replay official even said there wasn't enough to go to video and have a review.

[APG]

Just want to note that hitting a player who fits the criteria for a defenseless player is not, in of itself a penalty.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

Just want to note that hitting a player who fits the criteria for a defenseless player is not, in of itself a penalty.

Exactly. And in our state we were told that "This is still football, you are going to get hit from time to time." We were told plays that are unnecessary and forcible contact need to be addressed. He was hit necessarily here for sure and a result was the pass attempted to be caught when hit.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

There has NEVER been two football plays that have been exactly identical, over the long history of football at multiple levels. Somewhat like snowflakes.

And over more than a century, I don't think the rules makers have made a bit of progress by trying to specify unnecessary roughness by further description.

[Texas Aggie]

That is why I am conflicted because other than the hardness of the hit, I am not sure what the defender is to do.

The defender is to not hit the player in the head or neck area and not to hit him with the crown of the helmet. He clearly did the former. He launched. To say this wasn't targeting is ridiculous.

Besides, hardness of this hit IS a consideration: read FORCEABLE in the rule. Hard isn't defined in the physical science world, thus, the word forceable was chosen. Effectively for our purposes, they mean the same thing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The defender is to not hit the player in the head or neck area and not to hit him with the crown of the helmet. He clearly did the former. He launched. To say this wasn't targeting is ridiculous.

Besides, hardness of this hit IS a consideration: read FORCEABLE in the rule. Hard isn't defined in the physical science world, thus, the word forceable was chosen. Effectively for our purposes, they mean the same thing.

I do not see a launch. I see a hard hit, but not a launch. And launching is not in itself a foul.

Peace

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

From the 2016 NCAA rule book, rule 9-1-4 (bolded part was added this year):


As far as I can tell, none of the indicators are present in this play. In fact, you can see the defender trying to turn to hit with his shoulder rather than his helmet or forearm.

Last year, this would've been targeting, this year it isn't.

Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area

Trying to turn and hit with the shoulder....but yet leading with helmet and making H2H contact? This should've been a no brainer, IMO.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Canned Heat

Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area

Trying to turn and hit with the shoulder....but yet leading with helmet and making H2H contact? This should've been a no brainer, IMO.

We have been trying for over 50 years to differentiate between "Roughing the Kicker" and "Running into the Kicker" (even before such a differentiation existed), and although we've gotten better, are still short of PERFECT.

There is no "One size fits all" for any of the "Roughing" fouls, and there won't be one for "Targeting" or "Defenseless" players, either. The deciding factor has always been, currently is, and likely will always be the judgment of specifically what the covering official is regarding the unique, specific contact is being observed.

The better we know the rule, understand it's intent and purpose and are able to be in the best possible position to observe what is happening is all critical, but the judgment that puts all the facts together is what is unique to making each call (in real time, instantaneously).

[Texas Aggie]

I do not see a launch.

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an
upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in
the head or neck area

If you will freeze your video at :44 and then each frame until :47, you'll see the player leave his feet. Yes, it was AFTER contact but in this case, he just got to the receiver before his body expected to get there. Every word of that definition above is in this hit.

But, if you don't buy that, consider the wording directly below what I referenced above:

A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with
forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both
feet are still on the ground

Can you argue that he didn't do that?

[OKREF]

Had the receiver not been pushed in the back and forced downward, there wouldn't have been any contact high. Just before the contact is made a UT player hits Hunter in the back, forcing his upper torso down and that's what causes any contact that appears to be high. There is no launch, or crouch with upward movement. He gets hit square in the chest if the contact from behind doesn't force him downwards.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Had the receiver not been pushed in the back and forced downward, there wouldn't have been any contact high. Just before the contact is made a UT player hits Hunter in the back, forcing his upper torso down and that's what causes any contact that appears to be high. There is no launch, or crouch with upward movement. He gets hit square in the chest if the contact from behind doesn't force him downwards.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons I am conflicted. If he is not contacted by the other players, we might just have a hard hit. And I do not know it would be UNR at all either considering the timing of the hit.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

If you will freeze your video at :44 and then each frame until :47, you'll see the player leave his feet. Yes, it was AFTER contact but in this case,

Launching is leaving the ground TO contact...

It is not leaving the ground AFTER contacting an opponent.