RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: ALStripes17 on January 01, 2015, 03:36:02 PM
-
Anyone see the blindside hit on the FG return with 1:10 left in MSU-Baylor game?
Possible uncalled targeting?
-
I was wondering the same thing, but I haven't seen any angle that shows contact to the head/neck. Until I see something that shows head/neck contact, I'm going with no flag.
-
Does NCAA have illegal helmet contact (not necessarily targeting).
Although it did seem like the blocker launched himself through the defender.
-
I logged on to see if anyone had asked this question too. Clear targeting, IMO. Launch, shoulder to the head against a defenseless player(blind side block). Ejection.
Legacy, what angle have you seen? This is the one I saw that makes me think this should be flagged:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2316593-baylor-kicker-destroyed-by-michigan-state-defender-after-blocked-fg?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2316593-baylor-kicker-destroyed-by-michigan-state-defender-after-blocked-fg?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national)
-
Is the penalty enforcement for that a spot foul? So MSU would have had a lot more field to cover that final drive?
-
3-1 I think here, correct? Bring it back and enforce spot of the foul.
-
The reaction of the blockee is identical to the reaction we see when there is contact to the head. What I do not know is if it is possible to get that same reaction from a hit NOT to the head. I think the docs will say the whiplash effect on blocks like this could cause the reaction.
-
That's just the tv feed. Cannot tell if contact was above the shoulders.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No foul. We can still have hard hits in football.
-
This is *precisely* the hit (and resulting injury) that the targeting rules are trying to remove from the game. I am kind of amazed there was no flag on this - I hope Redding at least comments.
Did the R stop following the K after he went into reverse mechanics perhaps?
-
Do we all agree that the player is defenseless as a kicker on a return?
-
Yes he's defenseless. Just a question if the hit was above the shoulders. I can't tell from this clip.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hit to the shoulder - no foul. Also, while I understand the Kicker and Passer are Defenseless Players throughout the play --- but I was told that only applies if they are not attempting to continue to participate in the play. Here the Kicker was the first person moving to tackle the ball carrier -- I think you lose that Defenseless Player protection at that point.
-
He is defenseless under 9-1-4; check note 2. This is a player receiving a "blind-side" block even if he were not the kicker. Players have to learn to lower the strike zone on these. I've got a flag here. ^flag
-
For the lazy:
https://www.imgur.com/2hbOshb.gifv
Happy new year boys! tiphat:
-
Someone on the sideline told me that it was a hit to the shoulder. But as stated before, it was a blindside block. Also, I'm not sure if it was far enough behind the runner to warrant a PF or not but it looks like the runner had already cleared him and he was not threat to make a play.
-
You can get concussed without a blow to the head. (attached) Looks like that is what happened here
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Flag. He launched up and looks like he tried to lead with his elbow.
From the image that was shown, it was in the head/neck area. His day should have been done.
Who would have this, the R, or the flank on that side?
-
R should stay with the Kicker throughout the play.
It looks to me that this was at the shoulder and perhaps even under the shoulder pads. It does not look like the neck area or above to me.
It would be nice to see it in slow motion to tell for sure.
-
Looks shoulder to shoulder,
Concussion probably from head hitting turf
-
Nope I don't think it hit the turf I think this is an example of the "whiplash concussion"
-
If you down load the gif, you get a larger look and better resolution. Looks like no foul to me.
-
No foul to me. Like I stated in the chat room last night the 14 is 6'3'" and kicker is 5'9"
14 does not leave his feet and actually has to lower the strike zone the best he can.
To me he does not launch "upward"
His hit is a blindside block agains what i call a "non football" player a Kicker so that in itself gives the appearance of bad illegal hit.
We still need to allow hard hits in the game
-
It may be that it isn't a foul but at that level I would hope there would be a flag especially when the kicker is involved. From the angles I've seen it is hard to tell for certain if you have a 9-1-4 foul. The crouch and launch indicators are there even if he doesn't completely leave his feet. Hat level is virtually even at impact and he follows through with the forearm. These guys have replay to clean this up if there wasn't enough for targeting but without a flag you've got nothing.
-
Officials on the field need to officiate, and should never count on replay to clean things up. The official's job is still the same as it always was, simply put "Call them as you see them."
Replay is not 100%, and by putting the flag down, you are saying that in your judgment that was a foul. It is not appropriate to call a foul if you have no doubt that the foul did not occur. It is wholly inappropriate for an official to call a foul that his judgement says is not there.
This is about integrity.
-
Pertaining to the Kicker its not like he kicked the ball and just stood there. He immediately went forward and engaged himself into the play. He put himself there so like someone said above he is not under special protection in my eyes. No different than a QB throwing an INT then immediately chasing the defenders with the ball.
The intent of the rule was protecting a QB or K as you wish if they are just standing there doing nothing.
-
First, let me say I am not questioning this crew for the no call on the field. I know how fast this happens on the field. I also know what it's like to have your call replayed a zillion times on TV with everyone having their opinion.
This is a great discussion play because of the elements. Defenseless player, kicker, forcible contact all come into play.
In this play, I believe he is a defenseless player, but not because he is a kicker. The K in this play is in the same situation you would have on a punt with a gunner turning the corner in chase and an R player peeling back for the big hit.
I haven't searched to find other angles of this hit, but have only seen the .gif that is attached in an earlier post. Also, I did see the play live on a bar TV and watched most of the drunks celebrate this kids injury. With the editorial change in 2014, the fact that this hit appears to be "shoulder to shoulder" doesn't really have as much significance as in prior years when the rule stated "initial contact". The "Forcible contact" edit change was made for hits with initial contact below the neck/head area and the launch or other momentum results in forcible contact to the neck/head area. The angle of the .gif is difficult to tell if forcible contact ever got to the neck/head area. One indicator of targeting is a "launch". To me, this fits that definition by the player "leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust..."
All kick plays are train wrecks. Targeting is a foul you have to see start to finish and in a blocked kick scenario, that's a tough get. I wish #14 would have lowered his target area, which he easily could have done. Then, we aren't put in this situation. What I hate is that as long as the drunks still cheer the play, his coaches celebrate the hit and we say "that's just football", nothing will change, except more kids will just choose to play soccer.
-
I'd be ok with a foul for going high if you deemed the blocker went to the head/neck area.
But I'm not sure about the kicker in this instance being a "defenseless player." Yes, the book defines a defenseless player as "a kicker [...] during [the] return." But this kicker was a would-be tackler who was within 1-2 yards of the ball carrier when the block happened.
I can't think that the intent of the rule was to confer defenseless player status on a kicker who is actively trying to make a tackle and is within an arm's reach of doing so.
-
But I'm not sure about the kicker in this instance being a "defenseless player." Yes, the book defines a defenseless player as "a kicker [...] during [the] return." But this kicker was a would-be tackler who was within 1-2 yards of the ball carrier when the block happened.
He's not defenceless because he's the kicker; he's that because of the blindside block.
It looks really bad and I do think it's the sort of contact the rule was aimed to prevent, however his initial contact is with the shoulder.
If we have to use slow motion replay and we still have divided opinions then it would be right to go with the call on the field regardless of which side of the line it fell.
-
He's not defenceless because he's the kicker; ...
Yes he is by the definition of defenseless player:
2-14-c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
It is also a blindside block. As for the hit, I don't think any of the angles are conclusive either way.
-
Yes he is by the definition of defenseless player:
2-14-c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
I believe you meant 2-27-14-c
-
I believe you meant 2-27-14-c
Yes...thanks for the correction.
-
I can't think that the intent of the rule was to confer defenseless player status on a kicker who is actively trying to make a tackle and is within an arm's reach of doing so.
Well, as the rules specifically include the kicker during the return (and not just as an obviously out of play player), I think the intent definitely is to penalize high hits on the kicker even when he is going for the ball carrier.
-
Agreed. I seem to recall a video from a clinic RR spoke at where he was specifically asked about the kicker on the return or the passer on the int return and if they lost the defenseless classification by moving to make a play. He was clear they did not lose it. I do not know this to be true but perhaps when the committee discussed this they decided there was too big a chance that a player would risk DQ for the chance to eliminate one of the specialists (passer/kicker) from the other team from the game.
-
Moving to participate in the play does not take away the defenseless player tag that the kicker has. Notice how the definition includes, "during the return". The same goes for the Quarterback. The rules protect the QB from Targeting even after an interception (or any change of possession). Keep in mind that if the play is a half-back pass, the passer is not the one getting that protection after the interception, but still the QB, the one who took the snap is getting protection from targeting after a change of possession
So, what is the intent and why do two "special" positions of Kicker and QB get protection? It's quite simple. In the past there have been players on Team B who have been designated to put a hit on the kicker and QB on changes of possession. So, if you target both of those positions then a foul is committed.