Navy/Middle Tennessee targeting

[BoBo]

I am finally seeing this play on yahoo as a short clip.

I do not see targeting on this play. He leads with the shoulder and the initial contact to the receiver is at the shoulder level at the highest and its also from the side.

I am sorry I am in the minority on this one this in not a disqualification

[Magician]

We're reading the same rules, aren't we?

As others have said there is a huge difference between reading the rules and understanding the rules.  Philosophy comes into play on many of them as does intent.  These things can be explained but unless you have a decent amount of experience on the field, they won't necessarily make sense.  This doesn't mean you are stupid or can't understand it.  But like with many things in life, experience creates understanding.

Good officials KNOW the rules.  Great officials UNDERSTAND the rules.  Most people don't start as GREAT officials.

[RMR]

Hey, when they're going to do stupid things, they're going to get called out on it. Pride comes before a fall.

What exactly qualifies you to be calling anyone out?

[StudyingFutureZebra]

I call 'em like I see 'em, bud.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I call 'em like I see 'em, bud.

Then you need to read and understand the rules and watch the play again since apparently you see it but just don't get it.  This play has all of the elements that the rules committee wants out of the game.

They want the high launching hits on defenseless players out of the game for good.  These types of plays result in major impact forces on the head and neck area of the defenseless player creating a very high risk of catastrophic injury.  This exact type of hit has virtually the same elements as a whiplash injury in an automobile accident.  Given the way the rule is written I don't see an absolute requirement for helmet to helmet contact to make the call.  In fact the whiplash motion and potential for injury is just as bad without the helmet to helmet contact.  More and more studies are showing the whiplash motion is just as significant a cause of serious head and neck injuries as actual helmet to helmet contact is.

This play was a perfect chance for the defender to come in with a shoulder to the midsection, a clean wrap-up, and a textbook tackle with force that may well have dislodged the ball.  Instead he goes headhunting.  I've got no problem with this call.

[golfingref]

As a high school official, I am familiar with 'launching' and 'targeting' terms, but can someone explain the difference? What I see on the short clip has been my understanding of a launch, but not a target since the defender did not lead with his helmet nor hit the receiver above the shoulders.

[TXMike]

Turns out the Navy player is the same one who was called for targeting in the San Jose State game but IR overturned it.  That play made the CFO Postseason Video #1, play #1 and Redding said IR should NOT have overturned the call. 

Too many folks are caught up in the believed requirement that the hit be in the defenseless player's "head or neck". The rule says, and it has been frequently enforced this year, as "head or neck AREA". I don't want to get Clintonesque and try to define what that means but from what I have seen, the MANUBRIUM 
seems to be off limits and that is below what most would think the neck to be but is in the neck AREA. Look at the videos Redding has put out all year and you will see example after example of hits in this area which he says are targeting hits. (And as most of you know, it does not matter if that is hit with the hitter's shoulder or helmet, it would be a foul if made against a defenseless player)

[pgh guy]

Then you need to read and understand the rules and watch the play again since apparently you see it but just don't get it.  This play has all of the elements that the rules committee wants out of the game.

They want the high launching hits on defenseless players out of the game for good.  These types of plays result in major impact forces on the head and neck area of the defenseless player creating a very high risk of catastrophic injury.  This exact type of hit has virtually the same elements as a whiplash injury in an automobile accident.  Given the way the rule is written I don't see an absolute requirement for helmet to helmet contact to make the call.  In fact the whiplash motion and potential for injury is just as bad without the helmet to helmet contact.  More and more studies are showing the whiplash motion is just as significant a cause of serious head and neck injuries as actual helmet to helmet contact is.

This play was a perfect chance for the defender to come in with a shoulder to the midsection, a clean wrap-up, and a textbook tackle with force that may well have dislodged the ball.  Instead he goes headhunting.  I've got no problem with this call.

This was clearly an incorrect call and a fail by IR. The contact was shoulder to shoulder and does not meet the elements of targeting. We can argue all we want about the rule, but the fact of the matter is this was incorrect.  Accountability in officiating cannot allow us to just "go with the call" when the camera angles do not support this.

[Wingmanbp]

This was clearly an incorrect call and a fail by IR. The contact was shoulder to shoulder and does not meet the elements of targeting. We can argue all we want about the rule, but the fact of the matter is this was incorrect.  Accountability in officiating cannot allow us to just "go with the call" when the camera angles do not support this.

It was helmet/shoulder to neck area with a launch. Textbook Targeting!

[TXMike]

I saw same thing Wingman saw    +1

[Sonofanump]

1) Looks like targeting to me.  I'd like to see a better video from a different angle.

2) Lulz at the other comments on this thread.

[Fatman325]

The one thing that we can all agree on is that Targeting will continue to be a topic of discussion throughout the remainder of the bowl season and offseason.
For those of you who don't think that this is targeting, help with this problem. How do you write a rule that takes high hits out of the game that includes severity? The NCAA clearly needs to get high hits out of the game as the NFL and NFHS also does. This is clearly a Launch (leaves his feet with an upward thrust) and the helmets hit. I don't think that is in dispute. What the hit doesn't have is severity. It just doesn't scream ejection by previous standards of football. The NCAA is either going to have to live with ejections on plays like this one or tolerate some head injuries.
I am open to all thoughts on how to solve the problem.

[Dakota Dan]

This was clearly an incorrect call and a fail by IR. The contact was shoulder to shoulder and does not meet the elements of targeting. We can argue all we want about the rule, but the fact of the matter is this was incorrect.  Accountability in officiating cannot allow us to just "go with the call" when the camera angles do not support this.

100% spot on ... Not targeting ... There is a launch; however, the hit lands in the shoulder.  IR should have overruled it.

[Etref]

The one thing that we can all agree on is that Targeting will continue to be a topic of discussion throughout the remainder of the bowl season and offseason.
For those of you who don't think that this is targeting, help with this problem. How do you write a rule that takes high hits out of the game that includes severity? The NCAA clearly needs to get high hits out of the game as the NFL and NFHS also does. This is clearly a Launch (leaves his feet with an upward thrust) and the helmets hit. I don't think that is in dispute. What the hit doesn't have is severity. It just doesn't scream ejection by previous standards of football. The NCAA is either going to have to live with ejections on plays like this one or tolerate some head injuries.
I am open to all thoughts on how to solve the problem.

 

[younggun]

I know this is a little different but what do you think about taking out the DQ part of the foul and making Targeting a 20 yard foul. Inside the 20 yard line same rules as DPI. Would this be better or worse than the DQ part of the foul.

[TXMike]

I would be okay with a "reversion" (is that  a word? ? ) to before when we always had the ability to say something was flagrant and DQ. But if it was not flagrant, we simply assess the 15yard pers foul penalty and move on.  If the decision is made to keep the automatic DQ in place next year they are going to have to get past that psychological block that is in place about allowing IR to take away the 15 yard penalty if it takes away the DQ.  I understand the issue about letting the genie out of the bottle but we are way past that already.  He ain't going back in anytime soon.

[Fatman325]

I think that the rules makers knew that there were going to be some ejections that they wouldn't really like but they had to change behavior. I do think that behavior is changing as I see players pulling back more often rather than blowing someone up. There is probably going to be a movement to remove the ejection but that is the only real deterrent. A penalty whether 15 or 20 or more probably isn't going to stop high hits. Sitting down will. I can see the second target by a player being an ejection rather than the first. It is common to see the same player commit the same foul more than once.

[StudyingFutureZebra]

That hit deserved a helmet sticker, not a flag. Sorry.

[TXMike]

I think that the rules makers knew that there were going to be some ejections that they wouldn't really like but they had to change behavior. I do think that behavior is changing as I see players pulling back more often rather than blowing someone up. There is probably going to be a movement to remove the ejection but that is the only real deterrent. A penalty whether 15 or 20 or more probably isn't going to stop high hits. Sitting down will. I can see the second target by a player being an ejection rather than the first. It is common to see the same player commit the same foul more than once.

Apparently the process did not train Navy #8 well as he was nearly DQ'd a few weeks ago but was saved by the Replay Official (to the dismay of the Rules Editor).  No such luck for #8 this time. 

[BoBo]

Ok so what do you call the hit on the Va Tech qb by the UCLA player?

Targeting?
Leading with the helmet?
Helmet to Helmet?
DQ?

[curlyrefjd]

based on the video, I have to agree that this clearly is not targeting.  The hit was to the shoulder (which is nowhere near the manubrium).  There was a launch, but not a lead with the helmet, nor a blow to the head or neck area

I believe when RR reviews, the navy guy will get to be on both ends of RR indicating that the IR was wrong.

By rule, this is not targeting.

[Wingmanbp]

based on the video, I have to agree that this clearly is not targeting.  The hit was to the shoulder (which is nowhere near the manubrium).  There was a launch, but not a lead with the helmet, nor a blow to the head or neck area

I believe when RR reviews, the navy guy will get to be on both ends of RR indicating that the IR was wrong.

By rule, this is not targeting.

So to you the side of the helmet and top of shoulder is not the head or neck area. So to you what is the head or neck area?

[BoBo]

I think a lot of us are just going to agree to disagree with this call and until Rogers comes out with his stance and lets hope we hear it we can all debate the hit and whether its a flag or not.

This could be a great poll question

[TXMike]

Uploading a better video rihht now and will make it a poll

[StudyingFutureZebra]

And here another crew, this time in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl, the crew is targeting a specific player with a non-existent UNS and now a personal foul call. He did not do ANYTHING on either of them.