Targeting calls - Week 1 (Video)

[JRutledge]

I know we talk about these plays all the time. Here are two plays (might add) that were interesting. I will try to post more over the season. But these are some good examples of what we have to see without the replay.

Play #1:


Play #2:


Peace

[CT1]

In #2, the defender is making no attempt to tackle or wrap up his opponent. Targeting. #1 was an obvious reversal after review, but I can see how it was called in real time.

Don’t forget: Targeting is not an automatic DQ in FED rules.

[ilyazhito]

#2 is a target, good call by the covering official. #1 looks bad, but there is no foul for targeting. I would talk to the player and/or his coach to tell him "that was close, try to make a good tackle next time".

[Robert Goodman]

Is targeting a no-fault foul?

In video #2 I'm looking at the defender's legs. Just before he makes contact w his R shoulder, he takes a long step w his R foot. He's putting on the brakes. Along w that move, he's rotating at the shoulders to "get skinny" as we say in coaching. It looks like he's trying to avoid contact, but can't get skinny enough to miss.

I'm thinking about what would happen had he not applied the brakes and kept both shoulders facing the opponent. Seems to me the opponent still gets hit above the shoulders, but the player who fouled would've taken a bad blow himself.

Also, on a softer field he might've succeeded in avoiding contact.

[CT1]

You’re kidding, right? There’s no way he was trying to avoid contact.

He could have extended his arms and legally pushed the runner OOB, but instead chose to deliver an illegal “big hit”.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CT1

You’re kidding, right? There’s no way he was trying to avoid contact.

He could have extended his arms and legally pushed the runner OOB, but instead chose to deliver an illegal “big hit”.

Exactly. Two hands and push him OOB. Instead he went shoulder to helmet. That's a DQ in a HS game, as well, for flagrant targeting.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by CT1

You’re kidding, right? There’s no way he was trying to avoid contact.

He could have extended his arms and legally pushed the runner OOB, but instead chose to deliver an illegal “big hit”.

Could be/might be, depending on what the covering official observed and whether or not he "judged" the contact to be "flagrant. This particular play is long over and done with

At the NFHS level, "disqualification" is NOT automatic, and is specific to EACH situation.

[JRutledge]

I do not know that I would disqualify any kid in HS for these actions if the helmet hit the player. This is the procedure at the NCAA level, I would need more to eject a player at the HS level.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not know that I would disqualify any kid in HS for these actions if the helmet hit the player. This is the procedure at the NCAA level, I would need more to eject a player at the HS level.



Peace

What, death on the field?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

What, death on the field?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes Rich, death on the field. Yes, that is the absolute worst hit that has ever taken place in the targeting era, let alone in football in the last 30 years. He gets there a little later and that hit is not even with the head. I saw a worse hit last year with Michigan and Florida and it was not even a targeting foul after replay.



Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He gets there a little later and that hit is not even with the head.

Which is why the FED rule specifies “helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.” 2-20-2

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

You’re kidding, right? There’s no way he was trying to avoid contact.

He could have extended his arms and legally pushed the runner OOB, but instead chose to deliver an illegal “big hit”.

Would you coach a player in such a situation to extend his arms so as to hit w the hands? Whenever I see that, it looks like contact is deliberate. Such a hit may still be legal, but in situations where it's marginal as to whether a hit could be judged a late one, I'd've coached what this player did to try to rotate his shoulders out of the way. Are officials now looking at extended arms as a good faith attempt to avoid an illegal hit?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Which is why the FED rule specifies “helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.” 2-20-2

That is not the point. The point is this play I doubt I would eject. He clearly hits him in the head, but if he is earlier, he might have him in the chest. I think at the high school level with no replay and no 7 man crews should we be ejecting players automatically like the NCAA for targeting situations. Of course, we can if we deem that is the case, this to me would not be that case.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Are officials now looking at extended arms as a good faith attempt to avoid an illegal hit?

That's what we've been told to look for, and what coaches are being told to teach.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Are officials now looking at extended arms as a good faith attempt to avoid an illegal hit?

Actually no. If you use your head illegally your arms are not helping avoid a foul. Players will wrap and hit a receiver or passer high anyway.

Peace