The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 27, 2018, 11:08am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,804
Catch-No Catch/Targeting Review

Football season is close and wanted to get some discussions going.



Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 27, 2018, 03:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Rockville,MD
Posts: 627
Targeting, plain and simple. Forcible contact was made with the head, and the receiver did not become a runner (he did not put the ball away and do an act common to the game). Replay confirmed this targeting call, and I would have called the same in real time.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jul 28, 2018, 07:26am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,029
For once I agree with the “commontaters”. Contact was made with the shoulder to the receiver’s chest. Any involvement with the head was due to the receiver dropping his head to “look the ball in”. In addition, the defender had no way of knowing the receiver had not become a runner. I remember being quite surprised that this call was confirmed.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jul 28, 2018, 12:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,674
Who threw the flag? And how can we tell what we'd rule in real time if we don't have that official's viewpoint?

Given that it was reviewed and from the viewpoint we were given, why was that call upheld?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jul 28, 2018, 02:34pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,804
This was a booth review which is allowed under NCAA rules. So there was no flag on the play.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jul 28, 2018, 03:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,546
Tough call. It happened so fast. Did the defender have time to actually "target" the hit, or was it a pure reaction to his proximity and/or the movement of the receiver? The ground level, calling official who made the call in real time, may have observed something from his level, film doesn't show (which is NOT unusual).

Film can be a great learning tool regarding positioning and preparation for leading up to what's about to happen or what may have been missed, but it's NOT infallible.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jul 28, 2018, 08:49pm
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
Tough call. It happened so fast. Did the defender have time to actually "target" the hit, or was it a pure reaction to his proximity and/or the movement of the receiver? The ground level, calling official who made the call in real time, may have observed something from his level, film doesn't show (which is NOT unusual).

Film can be a great learning tool regarding positioning and preparation for leading up to what's about to happen or what may have been missed, but it's NOT infallible.
But that’s just the point — no on-field official saw this as targeting. The call was made from the booth using “not infallible” replay.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jul 28, 2018, 09:30pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,804
This is why I do not understand booth reviews sometimes.



Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2018, 03:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
This was a booth review which is allowed under NCAA rules. So there was no flag on the play.
Wow. The official who had the view we have effectively called this a foul?

So now they have procedures adopted to give a better look, and in cases where an automatic disqualifier is possible, they get them this wrong? I don't see how the 1st was even close to using or targeting the head area, nor how the 2nd was close to not using or targeting the head area!

The usual situation is, we criticize because we happen to get a much better view than the field official. Here the officials with the slow-motion elevated view are the ones with the "imagination"?!

Last edited by Robert Goodman; Sun Jul 29, 2018 at 03:47pm.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2018, 08:17pm
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1 View Post
the defender had no way of knowing the receiver had not become a runner.
FYI, this part is irrelevant as it relates to the targeting rule.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 29, 2018, 10:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
This was a booth review which is allowed under NCAA rules. So there was no flag on the play. Peace
Although the play in question was played under NCAA rules, the question raised was related to NFHS rules, where there is no Video Replay "used by game officials in making any decision relating to the game is prohibited (NFHS1-1-9)

Although currently under consideration in some sections of the country, hopefully wisdom will prevail, and this technology will NOT be sanctioned under Interscholastic rules.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 30, 2018, 09:04am
#76 #76 is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 14
Looking at both of these plays at full speed I would likely have ruled targeting on both of them at the high school level. With benefit of replay (in my own opinion, not what was actually ruled in the respective games) I believe I would have been wrong on the first play, but right on the second play. These are tough to get at full speed, but I have to believe play #2 sounded a whole lot different than play #1.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 30, 2018, 09:10am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
Although the play in question was played under NCAA rules, the question raised was related to NFHS rules, where there is no Video Replay "used by game officials in making any decision relating to the game is prohibited (NFHS1-1-9)

Although currently under consideration in some sections of the country, hopefully wisdom will prevail, and this technology will NOT be sanctioned under Interscholastic rules.
I did not ask the question specific to any level honestly. I was OK with anyone responding based on several levels. The NFL even has a new rule of these kinds of hits, so it is possible that this could be considered illegal this year at that level.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 02, 2018, 07:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,161
Targeting. No catch.

Next?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 03, 2018, 12:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 654
FWIW, it was reported that the Big Ten Conference told OSU that targeting was an incorrect call. I was thinking they also said it should have been ruled a catch and fumble, but I cannot find that reported anywhere. The closest I found was the OSU was going to award Ward with a caused fumble at the following day's practice, but that was certainly an unofficial award.
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
fair/foul - then catch/no-catch David Emerling Baseball 36 Tue May 07, 2013 08:58am
Catch/No Catch- Atlanta v. Chicago biggravy Baseball 10 Thu Apr 08, 2010 08:27am
Ankiel injury - Catch/No-catch? TxUmp Baseball 17 Wed May 06, 2009 11:26pm
Catch or no catch(foul ball)? illiniwek8 Baseball 2 Sat Mar 25, 2006 07:16pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1