ND @ Texas Targeting or not?
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y9Ry0p6kqLU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What do you think? Some talk about this last night from officials at that level.

Peace

I kept yelling "call it" at the TV but it didn't help. :eek:

Wonder what officiating organization worked that game. I'd have flagged it for sure.

ACC on-field (Gary Patterson's crew)

Big XII replay

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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

Peace

I talked to a BIG official last night. Mr. Carollo was very adamant that this is targeting.

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

Sliding Tackle Targeting
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yNWSAD-UH4g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


3rd Targeting call in this game.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_msWogFstt0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

There has NEVER been two football plays that have been exactly identical, over the long history of football at multiple levels. Somewhat like snowflakes. It's unlikely that there has never been exactly identical observations of any football play, over the same period.(positioning differences, obstacles, distance variations, individual focus, etc.)

What matters (replay aside) is that the covering official knows full well what the requirements of the rule are, was in the optimum position to observe the action thoroughly, leading up to and during the contact and ruled on what he understood and observed.

There are factors film, considering available varying speed and focus, provides that human eyesight is incapable of, AND there are factors, available to the human eye, that film is often unable to discern.

Whether this contact was, or wasn't targeting has long been decided and will NOT change. What can be learned from reviewing and discussing it, is enhancing our individual understanding of the letter and intent of the rule and underscoring the importance of positioning so as to be best prepared to observe the action, so the judgment on the next, similar play might be as accurate as "humanly" possible.

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.