Catch-No Catch/Targeting Review

[JRutledge]

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



Peace

[ilyazhito]

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.

[CT1]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

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?

[JRutledge]

This was a booth review which is allowed under NCAA rules. So there was no flag on the play.

Peace

[ajmc]

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.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

[JRutledge]

This is why I do not understand booth reviews sometimes.



Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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"?!

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by CT1

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[#76]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

[Texas Aggie]

Targeting. No catch.

Next?

[Altor]

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.