The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 27, 2016, 12:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,193
You need to read and reference the rest of what I said to be able to attempt a refutation. (Sorry for the too many r's).

How many have you seen leave their feet BEFORE and AFTER the hit? The rule is worded in such a way that presumes what normally happens -- a player leaves his feet and THEN hits the opponent. In this case, he clearly got to the opponent before his lower body "expected" (if you will) him to get there. The fact that his feet left the ground at all indicates a launch.

I will concede this is a bit technical but the intent of the rule, as has been stated, is to take these types of hits out of the game completely. Arguing about only one part of the launch definition when EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE DEFINITION was met is beyond silly.

I defy anyone who is arguing this isn't targeting to suggest that the committee would view this hit and say, "yes, we have no problem with this hit remaining in the game but it is the other types of hits we want out..." THAT is how you need to view the targeting hits. Not to mention the when in question directive. It IS a foul.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 27, 2016, 08:26am
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie View Post

I defy anyone who is arguing this isn't targeting to suggest that the committee would view this hit and say, "yes, we have no problem with this hit remaining in the game but it is the other types of hits we want out..." THAT is how you need to view the targeting hits. Not to mention the when in question directive. It IS a foul.
The replay official in the booth looked at this hit and decided in real time not to buzz down and stop the game. He said afterwards that when he looked at it, this play wasn't targeting.

Last edited by OKREF; Tue Sep 27, 2016 at 08:29am.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 27, 2016, 08:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF View Post
The replay official in the booth looked at this hit and decided in real time not to buzz down and stop the game. He said afterwards that when he looked at it, this play wasn't targeting.
And I say he's wrong, egregiously so.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 27, 2016, 10:14am
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
And I say he's wrong, egregiously so.
Those were his words almost verbatim. He said the hit did not rise to an egregious level, which is what they have to look for when the booth initiates a replay of this kind.

I'll admit, when I saw it live I thought he was going to get ejected, but after seeing the replay, I didn't think it was targeting.

Last edited by OKREF; Tue Sep 27, 2016 at 10:44am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Texas vs Texas tech (Video) Texref Basketball 8 Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:53pm
2 Targeting/Helmet Contact Video Clips Reffing Rev. Football 5 Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:53pm
Targeting LeRoy Football 10 Sat Sep 20, 2014 03:12pm
NCAA proposes changes to targeting, substitution rules in football Suudy Football 29 Tue Feb 25, 2014 09:29pm
Coaches want targeting rules altered APG Football 6 Sun Sep 22, 2013 07:49pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1