ND @ Texas Targeting or not?

[CT1]

Of course it is. It's exactly the type of play the rule was made for -- forcible contact to the head or neck area.

It's also the type of play that we need to get out of football if football, as we know it, is to survive.

[HLin NC]

My crew chief from last night is a former D1 official and current conference observer. The discussion indicated that the highest levels say it was not targeting.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

My crew chief from last night is a former D1 official and current conference observer. The discussion indicated that the highest levels say it was not targeting.

Did "the highest levels" say why not? (For we fans who want to be somewhat knowledgeable of the rules, and for aspiring NCAA officials)

[jTheUmp]

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

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.


Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes 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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

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.

[JRutledge]

I have very mixed emotions about this play as well. I thought it was not targeting because he did not try to hit him directly in the head, the receiver come down to him and that is where the contact took place. The only issue is did he need to even hit him, but he did have the ball and nothing in the rule says you cannot hit a receiver at all. I have not heard the conference or NCAA say at this time that was not what was supposed to be called. But when some D1 officials talked about this, they felt it was targeting and I am really confused at this point as a current Back Judge in college.

Peace

[SE Minnestoa Re]

At the Minnesota/Oregon State game Thursday, two targeting calls were made that were not as bad as this one. Ejections were both upheld by replay. One was on a sliding quarterback who seemed to go down late. The other was on a roughing the passer call.

The Gophers had a total of 3 called. The first one was really bad and the ejection was easy.

Whether the calls are right or wrong, the practice of aiming high needs to cease. Aim at the waist and even if the offended player drops down, you still won't likely end up above the shoulders.

[JRutledge]

The only problem is I am not sure this was an "aim" as it was just a hit. If he went even lower.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

At the Minnesota/Oregon State game Thursday, two targeting calls were made that were not as bad as this one. Ejections were both upheld by replay. One was on a sliding quarterback who seemed to go down late. The other was on a roughing the passer call.

The Gophers had a total of 3 called. The first one was really bad and the ejection was easy.

Whether the calls are right or wrong, the practice of aiming high needs to cease. Aim at the waist and even if the offended player drops down, you still won't likely end up above the shoulders.

Here are some of the plays. Not my videos but I did some looking.

Sliding Tackle Targeting



3rd Targeting call in this game.


Peace

[scrounge]

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.

Really? The TX player makes no attempt to wrap up, he's coming in on a beeline with his head down, fully intent on a kill shot. He does his little stomp dance after it, confirming it. He's leading with the helmet (indicator one), lowering the head and initiating contact with the crown (indicator two) - yea, some shoulder is involved too - I'm not Zaprudering it to that level to nitpick on how much, and while it's not an upward thrust, there certainly is a forward thrust (indicator three).

This was an egregious miss IMO.

[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

[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?