RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: BoBo on December 08, 2015, 05:20:30 PM
-
Iowa fans have been bringing this play up and they have asked if this was targeting on this play?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJx714eHzHw&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJx714eHzHw&feature=youtu.be)
-Thanks TXMike for the help on the video.
-
Targeting ^flag
-
Nah
-
Yes. ^flag
-
yEs:
-
I say no, because it looks to me like the defender is trying to go lower, but the receiver falling causes the contact to be high.
-
it's not TGT because this is shoulder to shoulder contact, secondly (not that it matters because it is shoulder contact) but there is a position change by the reciever
-
Defenseless receiver? Check.
Initiating forcible contact to the head or neck area? Check
Targeting.
-
On a practical level, is anyone ever going to be able to call a foul in this precise situation? I dare anyone to say that they wouldn't be distracted from the hit by the tipped ball. Even if you're watching it on video and you know it's coming it's still hard not to look at the loose ball. I certainly would be.
-
Defenseless: Yes
Forcible contact to head or neck area: Looks like shoulder to shoulder hit, the defender actually turns his shoulders.
-
I dare anyone to say that they wouldn't be distracted from the hit by the tipped ball.
??? Uhhhhhh that's exactly what they pay us to do.
-
Does the defender behind the receiver make intial contact to cause the the change of the receivers planes?
If so it is difficult for me to call a target as the DB has such a limited time and spaced to make a last second change of strike zone.
Just my opinion
-
My initial reaction watching it live was TGT
-
These camera shots may not be the best but IMO the forcible contact is to the shoulder and not to the head or neck area. It's a great play to discuss with your crew to cover who will be watching the hit and who will be watching the catch. Looks like these guys had this one covered pretty well.
-
Iowa fans should be screaming more about the Chop Block not called on the 4th and 2 at the end of the game (watch what the C and LG does to the LB) ... MSU would have had 4th and 15 at the on the Iowa 17 with the score 13-9 Iowa and less than 2 min in the game if that play would have been properly called....
-
TXMike can you score the possible chop block that above is speaking of?
-
Targeting Shoulder to helmet ^flag
The receivers head would not go back like that if it was shoulder to shoulder.
-
I like the debate on this play, I would be interested to hear what Rogers has to say on the hit
-
TXMike can you score the possible chop block that above is speaking of?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/recap?gameId=400852682 (http://espn.go.com/college-football/recap?gameId=400852682)
Go to the 1:18 of the clip and watch what the C and LG does to the LB (#36) on the second level
-
http://espn.go.com/college-football/recap?gameId=400852682 (http://espn.go.com/college-football/recap?gameId=400852682)
Go to the 1:18 of the clip and watch what the C and LG does to the LB (#36) on the second level
Looks incriminating, but that's a tough get for the covering officials. Possible the LG engages slightly above the waist, too.
-
At full speed it looked fine. In slo-mo... ouch.
-
http://espn.go.com/college-football/recap?gameId=400852682 (http://espn.go.com/college-football/recap?gameId=400852682)
Go to the 1:18 of the clip and watch what the C and LG does to the LB (#36) on the second level
Hm... yeah, that looks pretty bad. Should be the U that gets this... vaguely possible the deep wing on that side could get it if they've read run at that stage and started monitoring blocks in front of the play.
-
Looks like a point of attack chop block to me. Somebody (the U?) needs to get this one. The 2nd level chops (beyond the LOS) can be tough because there are so many moving bodies crossing paths but we need to get this one.
-
http://espn.go.com/college-football/recap?gameId=400852682 (http://espn.go.com/college-football/recap?gameId=400852682)
Go to the 1:18 of the clip and watch what the C and LG does to the LB (#36) on the second level
Definitely a chop. This would be the U all the way. His primary focus is second level blocks in 8 man.
-
Hopefully, there will be some additional clarification as to determining what "targeting" is now meant to be. Previously, a "Cheap Shot", Unnecessary Roughness and even "Head to Head" seemed a lot clearer to understand, and respond to. Personally, I doubt the human eye is capable, nor the intent of the rule makers was to call these plays down to the subjective level of a gnat's eyelash in determine responsibility for moving contact when equal efforts are traveling in opposite directions.
Strange, but despite all the technological advances "Replay" has brought to the table, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, change in the immediate conclusions and opinions instantly created, regardless of what any amount of replay detail may provide.
-
Initiating forcible contact to the head or neck area? Check
Except that it isn't really forcible, it isn't TO the head or neck AREA, and the defender did not actually target the opponent. He appears to be making a play to knock the ball out of the hands of the receiver, who's head falls lower right before the contact occurs.
Remember, the rule reads, "target AND make forcible contact..." In order to target, he has to be going after the guy. AREA means where the head or neck normally is. Sort of like a strike zone in baseball. You want to walk every time? No problem. Get to the batters box and lay face down. There's no way the pitcher can put a ball over the plate between the knees and armpits (or whatever the zone is). Obviously, that doesn't occur, as the rule reads the "normal" (or similar language) position.
-
Except that it isn't really forcible, it isn't TO the head or neck AREA, and the defender did not actually target the opponent. He appears to be making a play to knock the ball out of the hands of the receiver, who's head falls lower right before the contact occurs.
Remember, the rule reads, "target AND make forcible contact..." In order to target, he has to be going after the guy. AREA means where the head or neck normally is. Sort of like a strike zone in baseball. You want to walk every time? No problem. Get to the batters box and lay face down. There's no way the pitcher can put a ball over the plate between the knees and armpits (or whatever the zone is). Obviously, that doesn't occur, as the rule reads the "normal" (or similar language) position.
This is simply not true, intent to 'go after the guy' is not required. Look no further than this year's NCAA training video where the Corey Smith (Ohio State) block in the B1G championship game last year was called targeting and highlighted in the video as a great example of a targeting call even though Rogers acknowledged that Smith tried to turn away and avoid contact, but despite the intent still initiated contact in the head or neck area.
As to your contention that the contact wasn't to the head or neck area? Well, I disagree.
-
I don't think there is a camera angle to show whether the shoulder is the contact point or if it is the head and neck.
-
This does not look like targeting to me. The defender isn't launching at the receiver. He's trying to break down and turn away. That gives him the benefit of the doubt to me. It does look like all contact is shoulder to shoulder.
The chop would be tough for the U to see because he's going to start back side (at least on 7-man) and probably not get there fast enough to see this. I'm thinking the C may have coverage here and get this. The short wing or deep wing on the near side could possibly be looking here, but there are a lot of players in the way. This definitely appears to be a chop block though.
-
No way the C would have that chop
1:07 mark, the play prior appears to be a suspect chop with the C and RT