The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 24, 2016, 03:48pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Targeting calls - 9/24/2016

Penn State @ Michigan


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

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 24, 2016, 07:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,210
Can you get Auburn LSU around the 11 minute mark in the 3rd quarter?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 24, 2016, 07:31pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump View Post
Can you get Auburn LSU around the 11 minute mark in the 3rd quarter?
Here it is.



Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)

Last edited by JRutledge; Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 07:38pm.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 24, 2016, 08:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
If you could add yet another one, the non call in UCLA-Stanford
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 24, 2016, 08:54pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Stanford @ UCLA Play

I left in the commentary on purpose.



Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 25, 2016, 12:54am
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 25, 2016, 07:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 25, 2016, 01:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 25, 2016, 02:12pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 25, 2016, 10:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,193
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 26, 2016, 02:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest/plains
Posts: 402
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.

Last edited by Reffing Rev.; Mon Sep 26, 2016 at 02:35am.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 26, 2016, 08:05am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reffing Rev. View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 26, 2016, 09:10am
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,734
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.
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
ND @ Texas Targeting or not? JRutledge Football 33 Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:14am
Targeting calls Week 2 of College Football JRutledge Football 13 Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:19am
Targeting or not (Video) Hawai'i @ Michigan JRutledge Football 3 Wed Sep 07, 2016 07:58pm
Targeting LeRoy Football 10 Sat Sep 20, 2014 03:12pm
Coaches want targeting rules altered APG Football 6 Sun Sep 22, 2013 07:49pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1