Author Topic: Katy vs. Manvel will come to fruition (Read 18129 times)

JDM · « **on:** December 03, 2015, 01:54:59 PM »

UIL rules Katy can play after using an eligible player in a playoff game:

http://www.chron.com/sports/highschool/article/Live-coverage-of-the-Katy-football-program-s-UIL-6672744.php

TexDoc · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2015, 02:00:12 PM »

Sounds like they did the right things in order to mitigate their punishment.

HoustonUmp · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2015, 05:09:37 PM »

Plus the UIL would not want to lose the 15% of that gate.

copedaddy · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2015, 02:43:15 PM »

Speaking of the 15%, anyone know just how much the UIL brings in each year from football playoffs?

Clear Lake ref · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2015, 08:35:46 PM »

Anyone watching? Pretty sure we just had targeting at 3:18 in the 2nd.

TexDoc · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2015, 05:29:07 AM »

Quote from: copedaddy on December 04, 2015, 02:43:15 PM

Speaking of the 15%, anyone know just how much the UIL brings in each year from football playoffs?

It is in the seven figures. This is the main revenue source for the UIL

TXMike · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2015, 05:53:05 AM »

Quote from: Clear Lake ref on December 04, 2015, 08:35:46 PM

Anyone watching? Pretty sure we just had targeting at 3:18 in the 2nd.

If that was targeting then it is time for me to hang 'em up cause I would never be able to call that.

The play
https://youtu.be/yMNF8hbzL8A

Etref · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2015, 06:44:25 AM »

Quote from: Clear Lake ref on December 04, 2015, 08:35:46 PM

Anyone watching? Pretty sure we just had targeting at 3:18 in the 2nd.

No way.............

Kalle · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2015, 08:50:33 AM »

I don't see any targeting aspect in this, so I would like this not to be called.

goodgrr · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2015, 01:56:19 PM »

Playing devil's advocate; was the receiver defenceless and was there forcible contact to the head and neck area?

HoustonRef · « **Reply #10 on:** December 05, 2015, 02:12:52 PM »

Quote from: goodgrr on December 05, 2015, 01:56:19 PM

Playing devil's advocate; was the receiver defenceless and was there forcible contact to the head and neck area?

Yes and yes, but the defender was making a play for the ball.
No TGT

Clear Lake ref · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2015, 10:07:42 AM »

No question a play for the ball, but definite forcible contact. College games this year have called it for much less and then upheld.

The rule is terrible to officiate but how do you really change it? A UIL exception to remove the DQ would be a start since we can't review.

TXMike · « **Reply #12 on:** December 06, 2015, 10:12:21 AM »

Quote from: Clear Lake ref on December 06, 2015, 10:07:42 AM

No question a play for the ball, but definite forcible contact. College games this year have called it for much less and then upheld.

The rule is terrible to officiate but how do you really change it? A UIL exception to remove the DQ would be a start since we can't review.

I have written the UIL Committee every year since the mandatory DQ came in requesting an exception. Until some key games are affected by DQs that turned out to be in error they are not going to change IMHO

HoustonRef · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2015, 11:58:34 AM »

Quote from: Clear Lake ref on December 06, 2015, 10:07:42 AM

No question a play for the ball, but definite forcible contact. College games this year have called it for much less and then upheld.

Soooo you think this TGT?

I hope not

BlindZebra · « **Reply #14 on:** December 07, 2015, 11:47:34 AM »

Quote from: goodgrr on December 05, 2015, 01:56:19 PM

Playing devil's advocate; was the receiver defenceless and was there forcible contact to the head and neck area?

Quote from: HoustonRef on December 05, 2015, 02:12:52 PM

Yes and yes, but the defender was making a play for the ball.
No TGT

Quote from: TXMike on December 06, 2015, 10:12:21 AM

I have written the UIL Committee every year since the mandatory DQ came in requesting an exception. Until some key games are affected by DQs that turned out to be in error they are not going to change IMHO

Agree. Criteria for TGT is there...but was there intent? He is making a play for the ball and the contact to the head of the defenseless receiver with the defenders left shoulder is incidental. No foul here. But I am more inclined to wonder why we are trying to get a UIL exception to the rule. What are we excepting? The entire rule or just the DQ? The rule is written fairly well in my opinion. He deserves to be ejected for a hit that is TGT. We are not ejecting the player...he DQed himself. There is no place in the game for these types of hits and high school ball is a great place to enforce this rule to teach the player to lower his strike zone and tackle appropriately for the next level.

goodgrr · « **Reply #15 on:** December 07, 2015, 12:23:48 PM »

Where does it say in the rule that there has to be intent? I think there needs to be judgement in these but within defined criteria.

TXMike · « **Reply #16 on:** December 07, 2015, 12:36:45 PM »

Quote from: BlindZebra on December 07, 2015, 11:47:34 AM

Agree. Criteria for TGT is there...but was there intent? He is making a play for the ball and the contact to the head of the defenseless receiver with the defenders left shoulder is incidental. No foul here. But I am more inclined to wonder why we are trying to get a UIL exception to the rule. What are we excepting? The entire rule or just the DQ? The rule is written fairly well in my opinion. He deserves to be ejected for a hit that is TGT. We are not ejecting the player...he DQed himself. There is no place in the game for these types of hits and high school ball is a great place to enforce this rule to teach the player to lower his strike zone and tackle appropriately for the next level.

All I want excepted out is the MANDATORY DQ. I would still see we have the ability to DQ, as we do now, for a FLGRANT targeting. But an accidental targeting?!!!? If you have not seen accidental targeting then you are not working enough.

The Roamin' Umpire · « **Reply #17 on:** December 07, 2015, 12:44:23 PM »

In my view, under the current guidelines, this is a clear foul. NFHS fortunately does not have a mandatory DQ attached to the foul which, perhaps, makes it easier to call these up here in NY. Regardless, the defender dives and clocks the receiver in the helmet.

It's still not intuitive, but all of the guidance we've seen says that is how it is to be called.

first_year_guy · « **Reply #18 on:** December 07, 2015, 12:52:07 PM »

Accidental targeting?

I gotta get out more #youngster

BlindZebra · « **Reply #19 on:** December 07, 2015, 01:37:00 PM »

Quote from: first_year_guy on December 07, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Accidental targeting? I gotta get out more #youngster

I gotta agree. I have yet to see accidental target in the 3+ years (I think) the rule has been around. If you have a clip of accidental targeting you can share, I would love to see what you mean. But in a game without replay, there will be no accidental targeting. Either he did or he didn't...no maybe because when in question, it is not targeting. Not saying it can't be a personal foul, but in question it will not be targeting.

TXMike · « **Reply #20 on:** December 07, 2015, 01:52:44 PM »

The play being discussed here would be an "accidental targeting" if one exists. Does anyone think the defender was not legitimately trying to get to the ball? There is no way he could dive down that low to try to make a play on the ball and not have his helmet in such a position that it might strike the receiver's helmet. The guys who are calling this targeting would have to agree this is an accidental targeting. There is no way this merits a DQ, even if it MIGHT result in a 15 yard penalty.

I do not happen to believe there can be targeting without intent. I believe the rule says the offender must "target an opponent" that seems pretty clear to me.

HoustonRef · « **Reply #21 on:** December 07, 2015, 01:58:49 PM »

when TGT is involved, when in question it is a foul.

TexDoc · « **Reply #22 on:** December 07, 2015, 02:16:55 PM »

You need to pass on this one. No foul.

BlindZebra · « **Reply #23 on:** December 07, 2015, 02:21:13 PM »

Quote from: TXMike on December 07, 2015, 01:52:44 PM

The play being discussed here would be an "accidental targeting" if one exists. Does anyone think the defender was not legitimately trying to get to the ball? There is no way he could dive down that low to try to make a play on the ball and not have his helmet in such a position that it might strike the receiver's helmet. The guys who are calling this targeting would have to agree this is an accidental targeting. There is no way this merits a DQ, even if it MIGHT result in a 15 yard penalty.

I do not happen to believe there can be targeting without intent. I believe the rule says the offender must "target an opponent" that seems pretty clear to me.

Which I would agree with you. Had TGT been called here, it could be "accidental TGT" but that would also be the incorrect call...would it not? So if this hit was called targeting and you agree it would be the incorrect call, then we don't have accidental targeting because we don't have TGT at all.

Quote from: HoustonRef on December 07, 2015, 01:58:49 PM

when TGT is involved, when in question it is a foul.

Agree with you as well. It says it right there in the rule, but I feel this aids the calling official when he has replay because replay can remove the target if they deem necessary. However, when you don't have replay I feel the "when in question" is a different story. Harp on me all you want, but if I have any doubt that a player targeted, I would be reluctant to call it. If I am not 100% confident he targeted, I wouldn't throw.

HoustonRef · « **Reply #24 on:** December 07, 2015, 02:55:57 PM »

Quote from: BlindZebra on December 07, 2015, 02:21:13 PM

However, when you don't have replay I feel the "when in question" is a different story. Harp on me all you want, but if I have any doubt that a player targeted, I would be reluctant to call it. If I am not 100% confident he targeted, I wouldn't throw.

At the high school level, you're pretty sure he targeted but not 100% confident so you don't throw and the player is laying there unconscious. Do you still feel that philosophy is correct? I think at that level more than any other, everyone would be ok with you to error on the side of safety.