The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 07, 2016, 10:18am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,516
ND @ Texas Targeting or not?



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

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 07, 2016, 10:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,205
I kept yelling "call it" at the TV but it didn't help.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 07, 2016, 01:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Fort Myers FL
Posts: 600
Wonder what officiating organization worked that game. I'd have flagged it for sure.
__________________
Keep everything in front of you
and have fun out there !!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 07, 2016, 10:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFLguy View Post
Wonder what officiating organization worked that game. I'd have flagged it for sure.
ACC on-field (Gary Patterson's crew)

Big XII replay
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 09:13am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 09:40am
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,631
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 10:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by HLin NC View Post
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)
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 10:47am
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,250
From the 2016 NCAA rule book, rule 9-1-4 (bolded part was added this year):

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 10:58am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,516
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 01:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 268
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 02:29pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,516
The only problem is I am not sure this was an "aim" as it was just a hit. If he went even lower.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 03:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4
I talked to a BIG official last night. Mr. Carollo was very adamant that this is targeting.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 05:08pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2016, 05:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,585
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2016, 07:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp View Post
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.
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 02:58am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1