The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 02, 2013, 08:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lindenhurst, IL
Posts: 276
Florida State 1st Quarter Interception



Let me start by saying it looked like there might have been a hold coming out of the break that could have lead to a DPI call.

However, that's not the interesting part of the play to me... any particular reason why this shouldn't have been a targeting foul on A80?

He clearly attacks the head of the safety who manages to come up with the interception. I guess whether or not it was a foul depends on whether or not a safety can be considered a defenseless player. We all know that (a) receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier (2-27-14-b).

Unless I'm missing it, receiver doesn't seem to be a defined term. On a play like this, I'd argue that B-2 was as defenseless as any team A receiver or any team B kick receiver.

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on a play like this (a) under the letter of current rule set and (b) under the spirit of the current rule set.

Last edited by InsideTheStripe; Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:20pm.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 02, 2013, 11:50pm
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,732
I think he was going after the ball, trying to knock it out of his hands, and missed. I wouldn't go with targeting.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 03, 2013, 12:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
You could absolutely have targeting on this play. This is not an example of targeting though.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 03, 2013, 09:59am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,165
This is not even close to targetting. It has been stated in many tapes that we get from our supervisors that targetting has to be purposeful hits to the head with the head, shoulder or forearm. Nothing about this play even suggests that situation. This play are players going for the ball and there is going to be helmet contact in football. The player did not try to throw a blow, he was playing the ball. Any helmet contact is not illegal. This would not even cross my mind on this play.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 03, 2013, 01:08pm
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,250
Definition of a defenseless player:
ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. Examples of defenseless players are:
...
b. A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
...


Also, you need to consider the Note in the rulebook after rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4:

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet


(emphasis mine)

In no way do the actions of #80 in this clip come anywhere close to targeting, under either the spirit or the letter of the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 03, 2013, 01:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lindenhurst, IL
Posts: 276
Before people pile on too much, I can accept that people feel he was making a play on the ball. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree, but can concede that point.

I thought twice about posting the clip because I knew that people would be focused on the specifics of THAT particular play. While I did a poor job of communicating it last night, I was more curious about whether a B player could be considered a defenseless player on a play like this under the current rule language.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 03, 2013, 02:27pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe View Post
Before people pile on too much, I can accept that people feel he was making a play on the ball. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree, but can concede that point.

I thought twice about posting the clip because I knew that people would be focused on the specifics of THAT particular play. While I did a poor job of communicating it last night, I was more curious about whether a B player could be considered a defenseless player on a play like this under the current rule language.
You posted this play as an example. Whatelse did you expect people to say?

And yes the defensive player could be considered defenseless in this kind of situation, but that would only be if someone launched at them or hit them in the head and this is not that situation.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 03, 2013, 02:35pm
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,732
I can't even believe that anyone would consider this as targeting. We have to use common sense. He was going after the ball trying to knock it loose and missed, nothing more. Why do we always have to go looking for things when they aren't there. This play never even makes my radar.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 03, 2013, 03:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 762
Targeting on the football field should be what is considered assault with the intent to cause serious bodily harm. If it wasn't a football game, the action would be an arrestable offense. If you put 50 non-officials in a room all 50 should agree that the action is targeting. There should be absolutely no doubt about it. When it happens your jaw should drop.
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
Cincinnati vs. Florida State BktBallRef Basketball 9 Mon Mar 19, 2012 01:03pm
UNC/Florida State fiasco Basketball 11 Wed Jan 18, 2012 09:22am
Anyone see the UVA/Florida State Game JMUplayer Football 4 Wed Nov 23, 2011 01:07pm
ASA Florida State Clinic HugoTafurst Softball 3 Thu Sep 29, 2011 05:39pm
Florida State/Mississippi State Tech theboys Basketball 3 Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:25am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1