Targeting calls - 9/24/2016
 

Penn State @ Michigan
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BMqHLKQrWQ8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I am trying to understand this rule and the more I see this the more confused I get honestly.

Peace

Can you get Auburn LSU around the 11 minute mark in the 3rd quarter?

Here it is.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z8W7Fp1uI7c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

If you could add yet another one, the non call in UCLA-Stanford

Stanford @ UCLA Play
 

I left in the commentary on purpose.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TmBTWqnVa4w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

In my opinion, the Stanford - UCLA play was targeting.

I think PSU - UM was due to the shoulder. It's slight but it looks like he puts something extra in at the end.

Between Stanford - UCLA & PSU - UM, the Stanford - UCLA play was a much more dangerous hit.

These two calls (Stan-UCLA and UM-PSU), along with the ND-TX non call, really upset me. I thought the past couple years that we were finally getting some consistency with calls and there was at least grudging acceptance of the rule. Yea, there were some non-calls and some grumbling here and there, but I thought the addition of the booth review possibility would help there. I'm afraid it may have made it worse.

I am still baffled at the non-call in the ND-TX game. I'm sure there were other non-calls last year and maybe this year that I just didn't see that were equally wrong, so fully admit that it may be recency or vividness bias, but such a high profile situation only undermines acceptance and understanding of this rule. I know some have argued that it wasn't targeting, but I vehemently disagreed then and still do now. It's exactly the kind of dangerous kill shot that we have to get out of the game, and to me met multiple criteria of the rule. But I digress...

As to yesterday, I am amazed the UM-PSU call wasn't overturned. The defender didn't initiate any contact at all, he was trying to intercept the pass! Two players trying to catch a ball and very unfortunately tried to do so at the same time. Violent contact - but purely incidental. I didn't even think it was all that close.

And the Stanford-UCLA hit to me was absolutely targeting. I don't know what else we need to see - a launch, no attempt to wrap, clear intent to punish, initiating contact with the crown despite them saying it wasn't. Are we really going to Zapruder whether it was was 'just' the forehead of the helmet and not the crown? Heck, I'd put this into the egregious miss category.

The confusion on all these calls is related to "judgment" enhanced (or not) by technology.

The argument is long settled; repeated stop action/slow-motion/multiple angle/high definition photography is "often" (not always) more accurate than human vision ,limited to a single view in real time, from a single angle, possibly obstructed observation of multiple bodies colliding at rapid speed from different directions.

Those seeking perfection or absolute consistency among situations, where no 2 have ever, or will ever be exactly alike are likely due to experience endless frustration about conclusions that have already been finally decided, and acted upon.

I agree that nitpicking by a couple of inches whether that was actually the "crown" or not is ridiculous. A couple of inches does not change the force of that hit to the point that it's no longer dangerous.

That said, I still have targeting with the crown. It's pretty clear to me he hits him with the top of the head.

I think we're headed toward a post-game targeting review of ALL targeting calls and potential targeting no-calls. Right now, they can reverse a suspension for the following game, but there isn't anything (that I am aware of -- correct me if I'm wrong) that allows the conference or whoever to implement a penalty for a non-called targeting play.

The current system is not getting these hits out of the game. It seems like there are more this year than the last couple of years.

It also doesn't help to have coaches who tell their players to go out and light up the opponent and they'll try to intimidate the officials into not calling things. I know for a fact this happens, but I don't know how widespread it is. The rules are but a obstacle for some coaches.

The Sandford - UCLA call i do not see crown of the helmet, not even by the broadest definition. Since the player was by definition a runner who was trying to advance, he cannot be a "defenseless" player. Neither of the 2 types of TGT exist on this play.

I thought I had a reasonable feel for these types of hits. Now I'm more confused than ever.

I don't see how review upheld the PSU - Michigan call when the B player was going for the ball.

I don't see how there was no TGT in the Stanford - UCLA play when the B player had a clear opportunity to make a legal hit, but chose to go high.

Well, I would have been 0 for 3 with these in my games. Michigan game no targeting. It looks like targeting in the other 2 to me.