RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on September 10, 2018, 02:29:20 PM
-
https://youtu.be/EZWnT4_3lCk
-
Does not appear to be a late hit. Runner is "north-south" and steps out about the 46. Defender comes in "south-north". and contact appears to be simultaneous with the runner stepping OOB. "Targeting"? Defender lowers his head but can't tell from my video if he initiates with crown or to head or neck area (if you rule runner OOB prior to contact and he be comes a defenseless player). Decision based on player safety.
-
Agreed not late and not defenseless player. Some indication that defender lowered his head resulting in helmet to helmet hit but runner was going down simultaneously such that in my opinion this would be a tough one to flag. I'd let this one go.
-
Wow. I see something completely different. I know my previous coordinators would have expected us to make this at least a late hit OB. Technically, the BCs foot may not have been literally touching the ground OB when the defender's contact first started, but the BC was being driven out of bounds, and was not under his own control, at all. The contact by the defensive player in question was 1) totally unnecessary, and 2) was solely intended to punish the BC - there no attempt at all to truly "tackle" the BC, or even block him legally. If he had gone in with his head to the side and attempting to wrap up the BC, I'd say leave it alone. But this was nothing but an attempt to punish the opponent. The defender could have held up and/or at least made an attempt to wrap up the BC. But he didn't. He chose to try to punish the BC.
As for the contact itself, it certainly appears to be targeting. The defender lowers his head, continues his charge forward, and makes forcible contact with the opponent, using at least part of the crown of his helmet. The fact that he hit the helmet of the BC is discounted, because a BC on his feet is not a "defenseless" player. But, the defender lowered his head (indicator), led with the crown of his helmet, and made forcible contact to the opponent, and that is targeting. Again, absolutely no attempt to tackle or legally block the BC. Purely an attempt to contact the BC with his helmet, to punish. The BC never saw this guy coming, and did not "duck" or lower his head to meet his guy. His head lowered naturally, as a result of being tackled by the first defender, and the defender in question saw where the BC was headed, and simply took aim to hit him with his helmet.
Either way (late hit or targeting), this is the type of play that Rules Committee is trying to eliminate from the game.
Let's have the guts to help the Committee clean up the game.
Robert
-
Agreed. At minimum LHOB