Author Topic: Targeting  (Read 3382 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Covid 22

  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-11
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Targeting
« on: September 11, 2024, 03:59:00 PM »
This question comes from a play in the NFL but is pertinent for all classifications.  In the NFL opening game Lamar Jackson carried the ball to the right boundary.   I don't remember if it was a sweep or scramble.  Just before he was going out of bounds, he lowered his head and made significant contact to a Team B player's facemask with the crown of his helmet.    It appeared to be an intentional action.

I know that the likelihood of an NFL official ejecting Lamar is almost zero.  But I have also seen this in high school and NCAA.   Is there any good reason for this to not be called?

Thanks

Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 1403
  • FAN REACTION: +32/-9
  • I know just enough to be dangerous...
Re: Targeting
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2024, 07:36:15 AM »
this happened a few years ago in NCAA, a QB was tossed for leading with the crown - but he was very obviously trying to punish the (smaller) defender, it was very intentional. A runner just lowering his head and plowing through, even leading with the crown, typically isn't going to be a foul -but this one was egregious. I'll see if I can find the video.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2024, 07:52:37 AM by dammitbobby »

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 3053
  • FAN REACTION: +122/-27
Re: Targeting
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2024, 07:39:30 AM »
I’ve seen this called in NFHS games, albeit it’s usually a blow to the chest of the opponent rather than the head.  The rule is as much for the protection of the ball carrier as for the opponent.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3889
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-149
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Targeting
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2024, 09:03:54 AM »
The criteria for this to be a foul is that the ball carrier must be loose, i.e, not being grasped or surrounded by opponents in contact with him, and he COULD change direction and avoid making contact with the crown of his helmet. If he is being grasped by one or more opponents, and he is trying to gain as much yardage as he can before he is ultimately brought down, and he lowers his head to charge forward for those extra yards, and contacts an opponent with the crown of his helmet, even though somewhat deliberately, that will NOT be a foul. If he is open enough to be in full control of his directional movement, but he chooses to lower his head and spear a potential tackler with the crown of his helmet, that’s a 9-1-3 Targeting (spearing) foul.
Rare, but it has happened, and it has been called.

Offline sj

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-0
Re: Targeting
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2024, 12:35:09 PM »
For a play like the one discussed here, here's a link for those who have access from 2020 along with Steve Shaw's comments. Go to the 8:30 mark.

https://plus.refquest.com/videos/LwcgswiEpfmLWW13S5vf/5BHma6PGFO6P1siVd6ge

« Last Edit: September 12, 2024, 12:36:58 PM by sj »

Offline dammitbobby

  • *
  • Posts: 1403
  • FAN REACTION: +32/-9
  • I know just enough to be dangerous...
Re: Targeting
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2024, 08:37:14 AM »
That's the one I was looking for.

Offline Covid 22

  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-11
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Targeting
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2024, 09:12:43 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENArFXpQD8

The play I posted about is in the attachment at 3:30

Thanks

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3889
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-149
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Targeting
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2024, 11:09:08 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENArFXpQD8

The play I posted about is in the attachment at 3:30

Thanks

Assuming you are talking about A8 lowering his shoulder and leaning into contact with a defender, I don’t believe anybody would rule any form of targeting on that action. The contact made with the helmet is with the side of the helmet, not the crown. This was a ball carrier trying to forcibly gain more yardage, not a player attempting to attack and punish an opponent. None of that fits the criteria for targeting.

Offline Covid 22

  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-11
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Targeting
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2024, 01:03:19 PM »
You of course are the expert on this (seriously) but a couple of things from a retired official.
1. Jackson is running toward the sideline and has the opportunity to run OB with little to no contact.
2, Jackson turns up field and lowers his head with the intention of hitting the defensive player with his helmet.
3. Jackson makes intentional helmet to helmet contact.  For this, the foul does not require the crown to be involved.

Just an old man's view after watching it in slow motion and up close during the broadcast.

Have a great weekend of calling games.   I envy all of you that still get to do this.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3889
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-149
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Targeting side
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2024, 01:22:07 PM »
You of course are the expert on this (seriously) but a couple of things from a retired official.

3. Jackson makes intentional helmet to helmet contact.  For this, the foul does not require the crown to be involved.


I only know NCAA, and neither a ball carrier nor any defensive player are defenseless, so 9-1-4 does not apply. The only possible applicable rule for NCAA is 9-1-3, which is the ‘spearing’ rule, requiring use of the crown of the helmet. The side of the helmet does not count for a 9-1-3 foul. The action displayed in the video is not a foul in NCAA. The action in the video is the NFL, and they may have some other rule(s). But, if a foul wasn’t called, and replay didn’t get involved, then it sounds like no foul, there, either.

Offline ljudge

  • *
  • Posts: 407
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-2
Re: Targeting side
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2024, 07:24:06 AM »
I only know NCAA, and neither a ball carrier nor any defensive player are defenseless, so 9-1-4 does not apply.

Not to miss your point because I read your posts and respect your rules knowledge.  Many don't realize both players mentioned however can become defenseless.  A ball carrier who is clearly out of bounds, begins feet first slide, clearly has progress stopped, or clearly on ground becomes defenseless.  Also a defensive player immediately becomes defenseless if he's the recipient of a blindside block.  In both cases replay can put 9-1-4 on if it's there.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3889
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-149
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Targeting side
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2024, 09:51:16 AM »
Not to miss your point because I read your posts and respect your rules knowledge.  Many don't realize both players mentioned however can become defenseless.  A ball carrier who is clearly out of bounds, begins feet first slide, clearly has progress stopped, or clearly on ground becomes defenseless.  Also a defensive player immediately becomes defenseless if he's the recipient of a blindside block.  In both cases replay can put 9-1-4 on if it's there.

I stand corrected on the defensive player being the victim of a blindside block. Yes, he is defenseless in those cases.

I would like to argue that a "ball carrier" is never defenseless, because, by definition, he is a player carrying a live ball. In the cases you listed, the ball is dead. Those players are, indeed, defenseless, and would, certainly, qualify for 9-1-4 targeting fouls (as well as 9-1-3). But, the rules contradict themselves. 2-27-7-b requires a "ball carrier" to be in possession of a live ball. But, then in the listing of defenseless players (2-27-14 & 9-1-4 Note 2), they include a 'ball carrier' whose forward progress has been stopped, and a 'ball carrier' who is sliding feet-first. In those cases, the ball is already dead, so they aren't "ball carriers," as defined, which is what makes them defenseless. Yeah, I know. Semantics. But semantics matter. Yeah, more words, but, more accurately (2-27-14):
j: " A player, having been the ball carrier, in the immediate continuing action after the ball has become dead when an opponent has contacted or tackled the player, and whose forward progress has been stopped."
And they should edit item "f":
"f. Any player obviously out of the play during a live ball, or any player after the ball has clearly become dead."

I miss John Adams.


Offline ljudge

  • *
  • Posts: 407
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-2
Re: Targeting side
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2024, 05:18:24 PM »

I would like to argue that a "ball carrier" is never defenseless,...

I used my words carefully.  I said he "becomes" defenseless when those 4 situations occur.  Those words were direct from the head of replay and have been communicated in a well-published powerpoint...."Runner becomes defenseless when clearly:
On the ground
In the grasp and progress is stopped
Out of bounds
Beginning a slide (giving themselves up)"
« Last Edit: November 26, 2024, 05:21:45 PM by ljudge »

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3889
  • FAN REACTION: +177/-149
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Targeting side
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2024, 08:15:51 PM »
I used my words carefully.  I said he "becomes" defenseless when those 4 situations occur.  Those words were direct from the head of replay and have been communicated in a well-published powerpoint...."Runner becomes defenseless when clearly:
On the ground
In the grasp and progress is stopped
Out of bounds
Beginning a slide (giving themselves up)"

Again, improper use of defined terms. A ball carrier does not become defenseless. When the ball becomes dead, the player who was the ball carrier ceases to be the ball carrier and becomes simply a player holding the dead ball, and, as such, that player is now defenseless.
Just because Blandino is the head of replay doesn’t make him an expert in grammar. Neither am I. But, in my business, construction contractors, much like coaches, will use the language of specifications, as written, to defend why they did something they should not have done, or didn’t do something they should have done, in either case, non-compliant with, otherwise, industry standard. That is why we have to be very careful about how we write specifications, to make sure the contractors furnish the required materials, and install them in the proper way. Same here. The rule language needs to be very clear, unambiguous and non-contradictory. Unfortunately, neither Redding nor Shaw have demonstrated the exceptional language skills as those used by John Adams. I am positive that Mr. Adams would have coordinated the definitions with the application rules to avoid the contradictory language.
Do we, as officials, understand the intent of the language? Most certainly. But, if “push came to shove,” a coach would have a legitimate, albeit technical, argument that we can’t call a targeting foul when we identify the subject of the contact as a “ball carrier,” and a ball carrier, as defined, is not defenseless.
Fini