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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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:

Can you argue that he didn't do that?

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

Launching is leaving the ground TO contact...

It is not leaving the ground AFTER contacting an opponent.

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.

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.

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.