The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 18, 2014, 09:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North
Posts: 58
Targeting

I know the rule but do not have my book just now. So this is what I need help with.

There are some in our association that believes that a stiff arm to the head by the running back should be a "Targeting Foul" Part of me can say that it meets the intent of the rule but I would have a hard time calling it. I know in the past that after a new rule is published that sometimes they come out with a interpatation of the rule and post it on the NFHS page, I can not find anything like that, Has anyone else seen anything like that? Has any other group had that come up?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 18, 2014, 09:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
Very simply put, a stiff arm by a runner is not targeting any more than it's fighting. The runner extends his his stiff arm and the defender runs into his open palm. It's nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 18, 2014, 11:20pm
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeRoy View Post
I know the rule but do not have my book just now. So this is what I need help with.

There are some in our association that believes that a stiff arm to the head by the running back should be a "Targeting Foul" Part of me can say that it meets the intent of the rule but I would have a hard time calling it. I know in the past that after a new rule is published that sometimes they come out with a interpatation of the rule and post it on the NFHS page, I can not find anything like that, Has anyone else seen anything like that? Has any other group had that come up?
We have an interpretation up here in Canada.

If the arm is extended and it's used to ward off an opponent, it's not a foul, even if that contact is to the head/helmet. If the extended arm is used in a swinging method, then it is a foul.

If the arm is extended and in that process (and before it is fully extended), it hits the helmet of the opponent, then it a foul for hands to the face, which is a UR foul.
__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 19, 2014, 09:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest/plains
Posts: 401
Until a defender gets his neck snapped by the forceful "stiff arm" to the helmet...this will not be specifically addressed.

Is the ball carrier initiating contact above the shoulders? Yes. Does it meet the definition of targeting? Yes. Since NFHS did not connect targeting and defenseless player, as in NCAA, then yes, by the book you can call it targeting. Does anyone want it called targeting? I don't think so.

My opinion the stiff arm to the face mask needs to leave the game. Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 19, 2014, 11:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Northwest PA
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reffing Rev. View Post
Until a defender gets his neck snapped by the forceful "stiff arm" to the helmet...this will not be specifically addressed.

Is the ball carrier initiating contact above the shoulders? Yes. Does it meet the definition of targeting? Yes. Since NFHS did not connect targeting and defenseless player, as in NCAA, then yes, by the book you can call it targeting. Does anyone want it called targeting? I don't think so.

My opinion the stiff arm to the face mask needs to leave the game. Just my opinion.
With all the other "safety" rules they've put into the game I agree. I honestly can't believe this hasn't been addressed.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 19, 2014, 02:14pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,631
Unless the runner is delivering a blow, its nothing.

A defender trying to tackle a runner is hardly defenseless. A runner can be held, tackled, blocked, even tripped. Taking away the ability to defend himself by warding off an opponent, too much. As long as he doesn't strike, I see no serious injury risk.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 19, 2014, 04:49pm
I Bleed Crimson
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by HLin NC View Post
Unless the runner is delivering a blow, its nothing.

A defender trying to tackle a runner is hardly defenseless. A runner can be held, tackled, blocked, even tripped. Taking away the ability to defend himself by warding off an opponent, too much. As long as he doesn't strike, I see no serious injury risk.
Ahhh, if only the fans/coaches watched more football on Friday than on Sunday, they'd get this. More than once I had a coach in my ear about not calling tripping on the runner. And in one game a parent nearly came on the field screaming that he'd "sue my a$$ off" if his kid got hurt by an "illegal tackle."
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 19, 2014, 08:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suudy View Post
Ahhh, if only the fans/coaches watched more football on Friday than on Sunday, they'd get this. More than once I had a coach in my ear about not calling tripping on the runner. And in one game a parent nearly came on the field screaming that he'd "sue my a$$ off" if his kid got hurt by an "illegal tackle."
I'm sure they did watch plenty of football on Fri., they're just behind the times.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 20, 2014, 08:24am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: N.D.
Posts: 1,829
Funny, we've heard that this year too. Our interpretation, after conferring with NCAA guys too, is that the runner would have to deliver a blow with the arm. "Stiff" means it is just that, not moving any faster than the body.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 20, 2014, 03:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suudy View Post
And in one game a parent nearly came on the field screaming that he'd "sue my a$$ off" if his kid got hurt by an "illegal tackle."
Like a flag would prevent his kid from being injured.

People can be so stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 20, 2014, 03:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forksref View Post
Funny, we've heard that this year too. Our interpretation, after conferring with NCAA guys too, is that the runner would have to deliver a blow with the arm. "Stiff" means it is just that, not moving any faster than the body.

I like that North Dakota! 👍
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
NCAA proposes changes to targeting, substitution rules in football Suudy Football 29 Tue Feb 25, 2014 09:29pm
Coaches want targeting rules altered APG Football 6 Sun Sep 22, 2013 07:49pm
Targeting - Helmet to Helmet dvboa Football 37 Sun May 26, 2013 02:34pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1