ND @ Texas Targeting or not?

[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.

[Texas Aggie]

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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.