Author Topic: Targeting question (Read 9525 times)

SCHSref · « **on:** August 16, 2015, 06:40:34 AM »

Two parts:

1. Can a runner target?
2. If so, would you actually make that call?

Rulesman · « **Reply #1 on:** August 16, 2015, 07:26:51 AM »

1. Yes. Rule 2-20-2: Targeting is an act by any player who takes aim and initiates contact against an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.

2. Given today's environment and the emphasis on safety and taking these types of plays out of the game, yes, if the criteria of 2-20-2 were met.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #2 on:** August 16, 2015, 08:53:36 AM »

Quote from: SCHSref on August 16, 2015, 06:40:34 AM

Two parts:

1. Can a runner target?
2. If so, would you actually make that call?

Yes and Yes. There was a good example of this on last year's NFHS video.

SCHSref · « **Reply #3 on:** August 17, 2015, 12:58:00 PM »

I am interested to know how many times anyone flags this foul this season on a runner. Please feel free to make this a living thread.

Thanks

Cars69 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 17, 2015, 02:45:14 PM »

What are you going to do when the running back comes through the line with his head down, and B comes in to tackle him with his head down?
Target on both?

AlUpstateNY · « **Reply #5 on:** August 17, 2015, 03:59:16 PM »

Similar concerns were raised when "Spearing" was introduced, and questions arose about a "runner" putting is head down in a effort to gain additional yardage. The answers seem to have been found in the covering officials sound judgment and considering the intent of the action he was watching.

The "Targeting" revision is an effort to clarify, and possibly expand the handling of Illegal Helmet Contacts referencing utilizing the helmet as an effort to "take aim initiate contact" with an opponent, as opposed to gaining additional yardage. It seems, once again, the solid judgment of the covering official will be a determining factor in deciding if an illegal act has occurred, or if the contact was incidental and associated with a legal effort to gain yardage.

Sometimes additional language clarifies situations, other times, despite good intentions, not.

Rulesman · « **Reply #6 on:** August 17, 2015, 04:27:03 PM »

Quote from: Cars69 on August 17, 2015, 02:45:14 PM

What are you going to do when the running back comes through the line with his head down, and B comes in to tackle him with his head down?
Target on both?

Yep.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #7 on:** August 18, 2015, 07:26:05 AM »

Quote from: Cars69 on August 17, 2015, 02:45:14 PM

What are you going to do when the running back comes through the line with his head down, and B comes in to tackle him with his head down?
Target on both?

Remember, the whole idea of "targeting" and "spearing" fouls is to get the players to stop using their heads (or taking aim at an opponent's head) in a dangerous manner.

That said, you *can* have a play where both the runner and tackler duck their heads at the last moment that doesn't rise to the level of a foul by either.

OHref71 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 18, 2015, 08:45:59 AM »

We were told if he is lowering his head just to gain yards it probably isn't anything but if using head to punish opponent then nail him for it

Cars69 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 18, 2015, 08:57:08 AM »

Quote from: OHref71 on August 18, 2015, 08:45:59 AM

We were told if he is lowering his head just to gain yards it probably isn't anything but if using head to punish opponent then nail him for it

bama_stripes, that is what I was trying to get at.

Rulesman · « **Reply #10 on:** August 18, 2015, 01:22:11 PM »

Quote from: OHref71 on August 18, 2015, 08:45:59 AM

We were told if he is lowering his head just to gain yards it probably isn't anything but if using head to punish opponent then nail him for it

He still can't use the crown of the helmet to do that. Don't miss the intent of the rule.

prosec34 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 18, 2015, 09:15:45 PM »

Quote from: OHref71 on August 18, 2015, 08:45:59 AM

We were told if he is lowering his head just to gain yards it probably isn't anything but if using head to punish opponent then nail him for it

So if he's trying to hurt the tackler so that he can gain an extra yard, it's ok? I don't think that's the intent of the rule. The intent is to make the game safer, not to condone concussive hits because that's just how we did it back in the day.

SCHSref · « **Reply #12 on:** August 19, 2015, 12:25:53 PM »

Go to 13:22 of this video

https://vimeo.com/user18204278/review/135062288/7f057c0080

maybrefguy · « **Reply #13 on:** August 19, 2015, 02:03:52 PM »

That looks like Illegal helmet contact to me. I believe I'd call spearing.

bkdow · « **Reply #14 on:** August 19, 2015, 02:27:28 PM »

Quote from: maybrefguy on August 19, 2015, 02:03:52 PM

That looks like Illegal helmet contact to me. I believe I'd call spearing.

+1

bkdow · « **Reply #15 on:** August 19, 2015, 02:39:07 PM »

What about at 10:45? Looks like targeting to me.

VALJ · « **Reply #16 on:** August 19, 2015, 03:20:48 PM »

I agree with the spearing on the one at 13:22 - that one should be easy.

I have a hard time calling targeting on the one at 10:45 - initial point of contact is shoulder to shoulder to me, and the contact head to head looks incidental, IMHO. The helmet's not being used as a weapon, and he's not (to me) aiming above the head.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2015, 09:19:48 AM »

Quote from: VALJ on August 19, 2015, 03:20:48 PM

I have a hard time calling targeting on the one at 10:45 - initial point of contact is shoulder to shoulder to me, and the contact head to head looks incidental, IMHO. The helmet's not being used as a weapon, and he's not (to me) aiming above the head.

Yes, but: One of the indicators of targeting is that the defender could have lowered his strike target but chose not to. Isn't that what happened here? And if it is, doesn't the issue of doubt go against him?

I'd have a hard time dinging an official who called targeting on this one.

VALJ · « **Reply #18 on:** August 20, 2015, 12:44:02 PM »

I'm not sure that one meets the criteria of the B player "taking aim and initiating contact above the shoulders". We don't have any of the classic indicators - no launching, no forearm coming through, no leading with the helmet, or the like. (Not that those are requirements under NFHS, but they can all be pretty strong indicators.) In real time, I'd probably pass on this one. (And I apparently have a reputation for being flag-happy...)

I don't think I'd ding an official who did call it either, though.

bkdow · « **Reply #19 on:** August 20, 2015, 12:47:42 PM »

I'm just not sure if I'd see that dip of the head right before impact but if I did, I'd be inclined to offer 15 to the opposing team and let the kid keep playing.

AlUpstateNY · « **Reply #20 on:** August 20, 2015, 05:55:47 PM »

Like it or not, the only judgment that mattered was the judgment the covering official made on any particular filmed play, which by the way is long OVER. One might also consider the covering official made his decision in real time, without benefit of slow.stop motion and repeated looks.

What is relevant is the consideration, reflection and recognition of the various components of the rule in question; the aiming, who is responsible for initiating whatever contact resulted (from 2 people moving towards a collision from opposite directions) for use on the next call, which will also be made in real time.

The ONLY benefit of film review is strengthening the standards you employ when confronted with similar (NEVER exactly the same) circumstances.