RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: BrendanP on December 26, 2015, 09:54:43 PM
-
I'm sitting in the stadium, and I have to say this is the most ridiculous call of the year and we've got to do something to fix this rule. The player wraps up and turns his head to avoid contact. You can't defend the targeting rule as its written after this incident, and the Bolden one in October. We've got to re-wrote the rule and fix this.
-
didn.t look any better on tv--confirmed? ???
-
Agree that it's an absolute shame that this kid is ejected for this. Not at all intentional or malicious and he's trying to do the right thing.
Also can't blame the crew. They're just doing what they're told to do. Meets all the criteria.
-
didn.t look any better on tv--confirmed? ???
Easy to confirm that via 9-1-4.
1) Defenseless player? Check.
2) Contact to the head/neck area? Check.
3) Forcible contact? Check.
-
Easy to confirm that via 9-1-4.
1) Defenseless player? Check.
2) Contact to the head/neck area? Not even close.
3) Forcible contact? Not even close.
Fixed that for you. Sorry to be jaded here, but this is ridiculous. The higher ups need to pulll their heads out of their-you know-and fix this. This is absolutely ridiculous. We can get dangerous hits out of the game without penalizing legal tackles like this. Wrapping up is now targeting. What's been emphasized on this site and in coaching as a way of avoiding getting flagged? WRAPPING UP.
So how do we fix it? Here's how we word it:
"No player shall lead with the helmet or leave his feet to initiate a hit and/or intentionally contact the helmet of a ball carrier. When in question, it is not a foul."
-
If you're going to look at this video and tell me that there wasn't contact to the helmet, the conversation is over because we're not talking about the same thing.
https://vine.co/v/iAEgvEjtdVM
-
Fixed that for you. Sorry to be jaded here, but this is ridiculous. The higher ups need to pulll their heads out of their-you know-and fix this. This is absolutely ridiculous. We can get dangerous hits out of the game without penalizing legal tackles like this. Wrapping up is now targeting. What's been emphasized on this site and in coaching as a way of avoiding getting flagged? WRAPPING UP.
So how do we fix it? Here's how we word it:
"No player shall lead with the helmet or leave his feet to initiate a hit and/or intentionally contact the helmet of a ball carrier. When in question, it is not a foul."
I don't think it was a foul because I thought the contact was more incidental than forcible and that the receiver lowered his level a little and came into the target zone. But it was close...to say it wasn't is just fanboy hyperbole and you lose all credibility. And your proposed rule language is simply ridiculous.
-
Easy to confirm that via 9-1-4.
1) Defenseless player? Check.
2) Contact to the head/neck area? Check.
3) Forcible contact? Check.
I agree with 1.
I do not agree with 2.
I strongly disagree with 3.
This is in no way a Target call; nor, should have
been confirmed as a Target call.
-
If you're going to look at this video and tell me that there wasn't contact to the helmet, the conversation is over because we're not talking about the same thing.
https://vine.co/v/iAEgvEjtdVM
This action definitely should not qualify as targeting. Remember that the rules do require the targeting aspect which is missing here.
"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area"
-
This action definitely should not qualify as targeting. Remember that the rules do require the targeting aspect which is missing here.
"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area"
I've got to agree with Kalle here. Have we lost site of the critical wording that's in multiple places in the book that repeatedly attempts to stress that we have to have two elements together to get the targeting foul:
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4).
I don't see how a textbook wrap-up tackle where the tackler and receiver go down together can be judged to meet the targeting half of the rule. IMO if this one is targeting because the two facemasks touched then the rule's broken and needs some serious work.
And for the "checklist" guys who want this call to be simple, IMO you're missing the threshold requirement that the initial contact per 9.1.4 (the first half of the rule) qualifies as targeting, before you get to the second half of the rule (the checklist):
0) Did the tackler target the receiver? IMO no.
and (if 0 is yes)
1) Defenseless player?
2) Contact to the head/neck area?
3) Forcible contact?
-
Yep you added the missing piece , the "targeting". I was surprised IR let it stand. It even appeared the S was shaking his head in disagreement after the review. Let's hope it makes the CFO video
The complete video from game. Be sure to watch S reaction over Nebraska coach at end of clip. (I would have loved to hear the conversation between the Neb player and UCLA coach during the review)
https://youtu.be/_A_VC-CVtbo
-
This is the not the first bad targeting call that wasn't overturned this year. I think part of it may be the makeup of replay officials. They are usually people who know and can recite the rule book front to back. I think sometimes they get to caught up in the words and don't or can't make common sense applications of the rules. JMO
-
I've got to agree with Kalle here. Have we lost site of the critical wording that's in multiple places in the book that repeatedly attempts to stress that we have to have two elements together to get the targeting foul:
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4).
I don't see how a textbook wrap-up tackle where the tackler and receiver go down together can be judged to meet the targeting half of the rule. IMO if this one is targeting because the two facemasks touched then the rule's broken and needs some serious work.
And for the "checklist" guys who want this call to be simple, IMO you're missing the threshold requirement that the initial contact per 9.1.4 (the first half of the rule) qualifies as targeting, before you get to the second half of the rule (the checklist):
0) Did the tackler target the receiver? IMO no.
and (if 0 is yes)
1) Defenseless player?
2) Contact to the head/neck area?
3) Forcible contact?
This is actually the best argument I've heard against the call. And I'm inclined to agree with it.
But when you combine the "when in doubt" aspect of 9-1-4 and the "indisputable evidence" aspect of IR, it's pretty hard for an IR guy to overturn a targeting call when there WAS contact with the shoulder to the helmet.
-
I don't have a clue about the C's job but he appeared to be Looking right at it and no flag. Seems in a 8 man crew there should be at least 2 sets of eyes on most targeting calls and when there are 2 but only 1 flag the spidey sense see something may be amiss
-
I've only worked a limited amount of C, but I don't think he would have a look at this. He'd most likely still be with his tackle or working that direction. That being said, this is exactly like the play in the Texas Tech-Oklahoma State game that was confirmed by replay and then later supported by the Big 12. I agree that it lacks the "targeting and" part of the rule, but if past decisions are indicators, this will be supported as well.
-
regardless of what the mechanics are, look at the C in the video. He appears to be turning and the only thing he could be looking at is the catch area
-
This is where the problem lies. Whomever reviews these will stand by it because they are more afraid of publicity around player safety then making correct calls. Thus the officials involved think they did a good job. And the cycle continues.
-
Looks like the ACC takes it on the chin again with another questionable call.
-
C might have been looking Mike, but shouldn't have been. He stays with QB. QB wasn't threatened so eventually C looks for ball to determine when to move forward. Maybe he got there in time. Regardless we're taught that there needs to be a conversation between members of the crew who had a look before the flag stays on the ground.
The U is looking at the action also.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Why at the end of his announcement did the R say UCLA has elected not to use a 10 second run off? This foul does not qualify for a 10 SRO as it does not stop the clock. Furthermore if the crew believed it did qualify and UCLA declined the 10 SRO then the clock should start on the snap yet the R wound the clock???
-
This is actually the best argument I've heard against the call. And I'm inclined to agree with it.
But when you combine the "when in doubt" aspect of 9-1-4 and the "indisputable evidence" aspect of IR, it's pretty hard for an IR guy to overturn a targeting call when there WAS contact with the shoulder to the helmet.
While it might be true that "it's pretty hard for an IR guy to overturn" then why did he confirm rather than let the play stand? That is the problem I had with the IR call. While there was contact, it was not forcible contact. The defender lowered his strike zone, but you can see the receiver lower his head (after the defender turns his head so he doesn't initiate contact with the crown) to create the contact.
Are there any replay officials on this thread who can talk about their role in reviewing targeting? I would think it would be to make sure that all the elements are involved and the call on the field is correct. If all they are looking for is if there is contact above the shoulders, then their role needs to be expanded.
-
It even appeared the S was shaking his head in disagreement after the review. Let's hope it makes the CFO video.
Thinking out loud here:
I think the S would have the block downfield, and unable to take the H off the play before it was announced. Maybe only saw the replay on the screen, and reacted to that.
-
I think it was the L (in the H position ) who made call. S would have only seen on Jumbotron
-
Thinking about it. The thing that's horrible about the call was the ejection, not necessarily the penalty. That's what they need to change is the automatic ejection. Ejection should be for flagrant fouls.
-
Perhaps the replay official should be given more autonomy instead of confined to a strict rule 12.
-
Thinking about it. The thing that's horrible about the call was the ejection, not necessarily the penalty. That's what they need to change is the automatic ejection. Ejection should be for flagrant fouls.
Don't try telling that to anybody in charge in the NCAA. In my state at the high school level, targeting is a 15-yard penalty, and it's only to be called when a player leads with and initiates contact with the crown of the helmet to the head of another player. Case in point, the one I flagged back in October, in which a linebacker drove his helmet into the ball carrier's facemask. That's fair.
I'm not against a rule like that; what I am against is having that wide a gray area and saying, "When in question it is a foul" and kicking out players for any little thing. Now there's a proposal in the works by some of the higher ups in the AAC that would make it more like basketball's flagrant foul, where flagrant 1 isn't an ejection unless it's done again, and flagrant 2 is an automatic ejection. (Seen here from the man himself: https://twitter.com/tjmcaulay/status/655492604327411712) But that has to pass the rules committee. From what I've read, they seem set in their ways, and some on this board have even said that the targeting rule will get even more strict. So unfortunately, this is probably going to get even more commonplace. I might suggest shifting over to the NFL.
-
If that play makes it to the CFO review RR will either need to say this was not a foul or give a long and clear explanation as to why this was a foul.
-
I didn't agree w/ DQ of Nebraska player,IMHO made a legal tackle,GOTTA LET EM PLAY--if good common sense is used,you'll know when its bad beyond a shadow of a doubt
-
Having made things the way they are, if they try to change the rule now, I forsee a gaggle of lawyers waiting to sue on behalf of someone who was playing after the rule change (or, more likely, on behalf of his insurance) and ended up with post-concussion syndrome.
"The committee put the rule in place in response to well-founded concerns about player safety, didn't it?"
"The committee then, despite clear evidence that it was having a positive effect on players' tackling technique, relaxed the rule, didn't it?"
This line of thinking does not finish anywhere good for anyone whose rate is under $500 an hour.
-
This is targeting much like a grab of the jersey is holding. You are correct by rulebook definition, but this is a terrible call on the field and by common sense standards.
-
This is targeting much like a grab of the jersey is holding. You are correct by rulebook definition, but this is a terrible call on the field and by common sense standards.
I agree this isn't targeting but that isn't a great analogy. Holding is an advantage/disadvantage foul and targeting is a safety foul. They have different philosophies.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
-
I agree this isn't targeting but that isn't a great analogy. Holding is an advantage/disadvantage foul and targeting is a safety foul. They have different philosophies.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
What I was trying to get at is that Targeting shouldn't be automatic based strictly on the rulebook definitions. This targeting call is technically correct because it "meets all the criteria", but I think universally we all think this is a poor call based on common sense and spirit of the rule.
-
What I was trying to get at is that Targeting shouldn't be automatic based strictly on the rulebook definitions. This targeting call is technically correct because it "meets all the criteria", but I think universally we all think this is a poor call based on common sense and spirit of the rule.
I'm honestly surprised there's someone on this site that agrees with me on this. You even suggest that it should be revisited, you get your head bitten off and lectured about how football will magically disappear. (despite the fact that a slippery slope argument is actually a logical fallacy.)
I've always been a pragmatist, and I think this season has made it patently obvious that changes need to be made. Doing the same thing always yields the same results. It's failed spectacularly this year, so what makes you think continuing on the same path will get different results?
-
I'm honestly surprised there's someone on this site that agrees with me on this. You even suggest that it should be revisited, you get your head bitten off and lectured about how football will magically disappear. (despite the fact that a slippery slope argument is actually a logical fallacy.)
I've always been a pragmatist, and I think this season has made it patently obvious that changes need to be made. Doing the same thing always yields the same results. It's failed spectacularly this year, so what makes you think continuing on the same path will get different results?
If I recall correctly, back when the targeting rule were written the way they currently are, the rule makes mentioned that they knew there would be some, "innocent bystanders", getting DQ'd as a result of the rules. They were willing to make that sacrifice because through time it would change the mentality of players. I am sure the Nebraska hit, they knew there would be some like that, which appear to be legal, but players will see that and definitely think twice because if they erred on that hit what else could be erred on. Bottom line for players, don't do anything remotely close to going to the head. Head up and wrap up around the torso.
-
Great comments by Jason. The rules writers knew that there were going to be casualties with the implementation of the rule. There were casualties when the NFL made their changes. The advantages that the NFL has is that it can fine players for borderline hits and all of the officials are trained weekly by the same organization. The NCAA doesn't have that luxury.
At this point in the process we should be getting better at the decisions made on the field by gathering and having discussions. Secondly we should be getting better with the replay process in identifying where the forcible contact happened. I think that across the country there have been some replay judgements that have caused questions.
Rather than be critical of individual decisions or the rule how about offering a better rule or implementation process? I favor the basketball type rule of a 15 yard penalty for contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless player and a 15 yard penalty and ejection for Forcible Contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless player. Add this with continued training for both on field and replay officials and the problem could gain more consistency across the country.
Happy New Year
-
Let's talk about the OSU call. While he lowered his helmet, the contact was to the chest, but alas, still upheld. What say you?
-
Easy call. That is using the crown of the helmet and it is a foul when used against any part of an opponent. Does not have to be the head or neck area.
-
Let's talk about the OSU call. While he lowered his helmet, the contact was to the chest, but alas, still upheld. What say you?
I was wondering when you were going to come say this was a bad call!
9-1-3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
The crew nailed it.
-
I thought that was the pre-2014 version of the rule
-
There are two types of targeting. The one we see most of the time is 9-1-4, forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player. The OSU play was 9-1-3, forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. 9-1-3 can be against any player anywhere on the body.
-
Let's be glad Clemson wasn't called for one when the player making the interception attempted to hurdle the QB and missed, catching a ducking helmet with his knee.
He technically made forcible contact to the head of a defenseless player right? ;)
-
I'm pretty sure you're being facetious, but just in case, the knee is not a body part listed in 9-1-4 as a possible "weapon" for targeting.
-
regardless, he didn't target the QB... he was trying to avoid him
I didn't see the play... just going by the description
-
I was wondering when you were going to come say this was a bad call!
9-1-3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
The crew nailed it.
Yea, there really wasn't much question to me that it was a foul. Textbook 9-1-3 violation. And I'm a rabid Ohio State fan, very disappointed we didn't get to see him play the bulk of his last game. But the call was correct.
Now I do think it's part of the case to move the rule to a flagrant/non-flagrant distinction and allow some discretion, along with other mild cases like the UCLA-Neb, etc. But that's for another time.
-
Let's talk about the OSU call. While he lowered his helmet, the contact was to the chest, but alas, still upheld. What say you?
Correct call, not even close, under 9.1.3.
-
Yea, there really wasn't much question to me that it was a foul. Textbook 9-1-3 violation. And I'm a rabid Ohio State fan, very disappointed we didn't get to see him play the bulk of his last game. But the call was correct.
Now I do think it's part of the case to move the rule to a flagrant/non-flagrant distinction and allow some discretion, along with other mild cases like the UCLA-Neb, etc. But that's for another time.
Personally (I also bleed scarlet & gray and was at the game) I think the time is now that the rule is revisited. While the call was correct according to the rules, it was way too harsh a penalty for the hit. And this is not the first time it has been the case. There is a big difference between flagrant and non-flagrant (while technically a foul) and there needs to be a distinction in how it is penalized.
-
Sure, it's a harsh penalty. But the rationale is to "get the head out of the game". If that's what it takes...
-
Personally (I also bleed scarlet & gray and was at the game) I think the time is now that the rule is revisited. While the call was correct according to the rules, it was way too harsh a penalty for the hit. And this is not the first time it has been the case. There is a big difference between flagrant and non-flagrant (while technically a foul) and there needs to be a distinction in how it is penalized.
The thing is, the rule not only protects the guy getting hit, but in the case of using the crown of the helmet it really protects the person delivering the hit. Good call and don't change the rule I this case.
-
A broken neck is an even harsher penalty.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
A broken neck is an even harsher penalty.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
+1
-
In my state at the high school level, targeting is a 15-yard penalty, and it's only to be called when a player leads with and initiates contact with the crown of the helmet to the head of another player.
That is not correct.
NFHS has two types of illegal contact involving the head.
The first is illegal helmet contact which falls under 9-4-3-i:
ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall:
i. Initiate illegal helmet contact. (butt block, face tackle or spear)
NOTE: Illegal helmet contact may be judged by the game official a flagrant act. Acts that may be judged to be flagrant include, but are not limited to:
1. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent lying on the ground,
2. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent being held up by other players, and/or
3. Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless opponent.
The second type is targeting, which falls under 9-4-3-m:
ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall:
m. Target an opponent.
Definitions for both are found in rule 2-20-1&2:
ART. 1 . . . Illegal helmet contact is an act of initiating contact with the helmet against an opponent. There are several types of illegal helmet contact:
a. Butt Blocking is an act by any player who initiates contact against an opponent who is not a runner with the front of his helmet.
b. Face Tackling is an act by a defensive player who initiates contact against a runner with the front of his helmet.
c. Spearing is an act by any player who initiates contact against an opponent at the shoulders or below with the crown (top portion) of his helmet.
ART. 2 . . . Targeting is an act by any player who takes aim and initiates contact against an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.
Your example above has both acts in one foul but that is not exhaustive. A spear to the chest is illegal, as is a shoulder to the head of a player. The NFHS targeting rule is actually stricter than NCAA's 9-1-4 in that it does not require a player being hit to be defenseless but it is less punitive in that there is no automatic disqualification.
In my opinion, NCAA 9-1-4 is worded clearly and there is little left to interpret with the change that the contact be forcible. I have no problem with the automatic disqualification because of the way replay is designed to provide a backup to the call.
The area where there seems to be a breakdown is between IR and the on field officials. How to fix that is beyond my pay grade and I'd be surprised if it were not already being looked at. One potential way to address it is to involve the calling official and the IR official in the discussion and if necessary, make somebody the tiebreaker. I'm sure there are technical and logistical impediments to that idea but it's worth exploring IMO.
I do know that the way to fix this isn't to get rid of the DQ, it is to improve the coordination between the booth and the field.
Alternatively, the NCAA decides that things are fine the way they are despite a few loud posters on RefStripes and continue on with the way things are.
-
I believe it only will get worse. This will come down to politics or integrity of the game. Politics always wins.
Kicking players out for clean/marginal hits because they want to look like they care about player safety is simply politics. And all these organizations are run by politicians, even if they don't want to admit they are. JMO
And the only ones who look bad are the officials, the politicians can sit in their office and brag about how much they have done about player safety