RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: dvasques on October 01, 2013, 09:43:39 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7CQWWlfC8A
No targeting... defender had his head to the side and the contact to the head of the defenseless player was caused by moviment on the receiver
flaged (as it should be "when in doubt") but IR decided to overturn it
What is IR looking at? Wasn't IR supposed (in 9-1-4 cases) to look for contact with head and neck area, and confirm the call if they see it?
There is clear evidence of inicial contact to the side of the head of the defenseless receiver... or to the top of his shoulders (which could be called neck area)
I agree this should not be targeting, but why did IR overturn this DQ if they are not supposed to look at any other aspect of the call, like actions by the defender
-
My understanding of the rule was that it's only targeting if you lead with your helmet AND meet him at the head or neck. If that's the case, then this is a clean hit, as the defender led with the shoulder.
My question is what's the point of being able to review the play and being able to overturn the ejection, but you can't overturn the penalty itself. That makes absolutely no sense.
In this case, I would have only called unnecessary roughness from the start. They later said in that video that the NCAA might consider adding that to the review rule that the penalty itself may be reviewable. I might have some support for the targeting rule if they did add that provision and make it so that every targeting call is reviewed automatically because this deals with throwing guys out of the game.
Looking through YouTube for some of these clips, from what I've seen:
Nicholls State/Oregon was a good call
A&M/LA Tech was a good call
Texas A&M/Rice was a bad call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bvLkL3-eFk, led with shoulder, met at shoulder)
Northwestern/Cal was a bad call, even for roughing the passer.
My thought is whether the Clowney hit in the 2013 Outback Bowl would have gotten him ejected today.
-
You combined both parts of the rule. Any initial contact to head or neck of defenseless constitutes targeting.
Clowney would not have been ejected because they didn't call it to begin with. Rule hasn't changed.
-
My understanding of the rule was that it's only targeting if you lead with your helmet AND meet him at the head or neck. If that's the case, then this is a clean hit, as the defender led with the shoulder.
Your understanding is incorrect. There are two types of targeting and the announcer acutally described the two types very well.
My question is what's the point of being able to review the play and being able to overturn the ejection, but you can't overturn the penalty itself. That makes absolutely no sense.
The concern is subjecting the of judgment of fouls to instant replay. I think it is a valid concern but this may have to be an exception.
In this case, I would have only called unnecessary roughness from the start.
That would not be a correct call. If it's not targeting, is isn't a foul.
My thought is whether the Clowney hit in the 2013 Outback Bowl would have gotten him ejected today.
It was clarified earlier this year that the Clowney hit was not a foul.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4
-
I might have some support for the targeting rule if they did add that provision and make it so that every targeting call is reviewed automatically because this deals with throwing guys out of the game.
Uhhhhh....every targeting call IS reviewed automatically.
-
I thought at the time that the flag was going to be only for a late hit, & was shocked that targeting was called.
-
I thought at the time that the flag was going to be only for a late hit, & was shocked that targeting was called.
I agree, the defender took two steps after the ball deflects of his hands. I would have late hit UNR no targeting
-
If it's not targeting, is isn't a foul.
Are you referring to the original play. If so I disagree. I think we have UNR. The targetting would be added if the contact was to the head and neck area to a defensless player. I think the IR demed the contact not there, but see no reason why this would not be UNR.
-
So back to the original question, does it really look, from the replays, like there was NO contact to the head or neck area????
Again, I'm all for taking targeting away from this one, but if IR is to look at objetcive things like if the inicial contact was with the top of the helmet; or if the inicial contact was to the head and neck area of a defenseless receiver I don't see how they could reverse the call on the field from those videos
-
So back to the original question, does it really look, from the replays, like there was NO contact to the head or neck area????
Again, I'm all for taking targeting away from this one, but if IR is to look at objetcive things like if the inicial contact was with the top of the helmet; or if the inicial contact was to the head and neck area of a defenseless receiver I don't see how they could reverse the call on the field from those videos
I think what they saw was the recievers head going down and initial contact was with the right shoulder and then the head.
-
So back to the original question, does it really look, from the replays, like there was NO contact to the head or neck area????
Is that the standard? The defender was not targeting high. He had lowered his target, and the contact to the head and neck was caused by the receiver lowering his head at contact.
-
I think what they saw was the recievers head going down and initial contact was with the right shoulder and then the head.
If that's what they saw, then great. But I can't see it. At 1:19 I clearly see the heads coliding and then the shoulders
Is that the standard? The defender was not targeting high. He had lowered his target, and the contact to the head and neck was caused by the receiver lowering his head at contact.
Maven, from what I understood, IR cannot judge why contact happened. Only if the initial contact was to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver. And from what I see, the first contact was to the head. And since the crew onfield called targeting, I would not call it back. Although I'd be bugged by the fact that that was not a foul and should not be called onfield
-
So back to the original question, does it really look, from the replays, like there was NO contact to the head or neck area????
But who caused the contact? The defender was obviously aiming below the head/neck area when the receiver dipped his head at the last second.
From what I understand, this is not what the targeting penalty was designed to prevent.
-
From what I understand, this is not what the targeting penalty was designed to prevent.
That was my point. The concept of 'targeting' is about retraining defenders to lower their target. This defender did so. Why would you penalize that?
-
That was my point. The concept of 'targeting' is about retraining defenders to lower their target. This defender did so. Why would you penalize that?
I also see him trying to turn his body to avoid contact. He probably should have tried a little harder to hold up or at least hold up the receiver. I don't see this defender trying to deliver a hit let alone targeting the receiver. That's with the benefit of slow motion replay though. It looked a lot worse in real time.
-
But who caused the contact? The defender was obviously aiming below the head/neck area when the receiver dipped his head at the last second.
From what I understand, this is not what the targeting penalty was designed to prevent.
So IR is supposed to look at who caused contact and not only focus on wheather or not it happened? IR is supposed to judge then?
-
So IR is supposed to look at who caused contact and not only focus on wheather or not it happened? IR is supposed to judge then?
When it comes to overturning a DQ, all factors should be considered.
-
My question is what's the point of being able to review the play and being able to overturn the ejection, but you can't overturn the penalty itself. That makes absolutely no sense.
Thank about that for a minute. It's clear that we're not going to have IR reviewing penalties to see if they are accurate/justified or not. In these unique cases we have a call that effectively at a minimum (based on the way the rule is written) is a personal foul. The only thing that is being reviewed therefore is wether or not the act meets the additional requirements of being intentional and flagrant and therefore satisfying the targeting requirements which effectively has it's own distinct additional penalty (the DQ). I'm pretty sure that we don't want IR washing away the foul itself because IMO that opens up a can of worms better left unopened.
-
Thank about that for a minute. It's clear that we're not going to have IR reviewing penalties to see if they are accurate/justified or not. In these unique cases we have a call that effectively at a minimum (based on the way the rule is written) is a personal foul. The only thing that is being reviewed therefore is wether or not the act meets the additional requirements of being intentional and flagrant and therefore satisfying the targeting requirements which effectively has it's own distinct additional penalty (the DQ). I'm pretty sure that we don't want IR washing away the foul itself because IMO that opens up a can of worms better left unopened.
And that is why I think the "flagrant" part of this rule should be a part of the penalty. But it's not. So in games where IR is not available you have one of these fouls (like the one in the video) and a player is out for the rest of the game for something he didn't do