RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on November 07, 2011, 06:45:29 AM
-
1st and 10 at the 50. QB A8 passes from his 40 to the B-20 where the receiver is immediately tackled. LB'r B33 launched and went helmet to helmet on the passer on his (the defender's) 2d step following the release of the pass. Is this roughing the passer or targeting? Does it matter for penalty enforcement?
-
I'd call this a 9-1-9 PF-RTP with a 15 yard penalty from the end of the last run (B-20 in this case), with a possible ejection of B-33 if in the judgment of the calling official the action of B-33 would also qualify as "targeting" per rules 9-1-3 and 9-6. Down and distance after the penalty enforcement is A 1st & 10, from the B-10.
I don't see any other enforcement here, but maybe I'm missing something?
-
TxMike Wins!! Roger's CFO video which just came out says it CAN be tacked on as targeting. :bOW
-
My 10% cut of all bets won by officials around the country can be donated to the charity of your choice. tiphat:
-
I don't see any other enforcement here, but maybe I'm missing something?
What is the basic spot on pass plays?
Granted, TXMike didn't go out and say it, but I think he meant that the foul occurs during the pass play.
-
Yep that was the intent. To highlight potential different enforcement spots
-
TxMike Wins!! Roger's CFO video which just came out says it CAN be tacked on as targeting. :bOW
For those of us without access to RR's video, did he say the Targeting foul could be tacked on INSTEAD of enforcing KCI, or in ADDITION to KCI? In other words, can you enforce TWO fouls (I would think not), or that it would have been proper to add it on IN THIS CASE since the KCI was declined?
-
he said one or the other (or implied it anyway)
-
My 10% cut of all bets won by officials around the country can be donated to the charity of your choice. tiphat:
Remember the stoic few that stood with you on your rise to the top. :sTiR:
-
he said one or the other (or implied it anyway)
So for those of us who don't have access to the videos, has Dr. Redding actually said that there is a clearly defined penalty PF-Targeting that is enforceable at the subsequent spot? So in the KCI example we would actually have had 2 fouls, one for KCI and one for PF-Targeting and we could actually tack the PF Targeting 15 to the end of the return?
-
Remember the stoic few that stood with you on your rise to the top. :sTiR:
Oh yeah..NOW you are all gonna start saying that is the way you would have ruled too!!!
I will say that the poll results from Rom Gilbert's poll ade me feel a lot better than the "love" I was gettng here. Lots of folks apparentky thought the same but were not speaking up. ;)
-
Oh yeah..NOW you are all gonna start saying that is the way you would have ruled too!!!
Check the thread and you'll notice my posts along with yours...of course I realize as a Division 4 (almost 3!), my voice gets lost in the wilderness sometimes. ;)
-
TxMike Wins!! Roger's CFO video which just came out says it CAN be tacked on as targeting. :bOW
Even a blind hog can find a nut if he sniffs around under the pecan tree long enough.
-
Although I was compared to a condom yesterday and now a blind hog today, I prefer the clock comparison (we B's are all about timing after all)....even a broken clock is right twice a day.
-
OK, just to :sTiR: :
Hasn't RR said that you can call KCI OR targeting, but not both? The single act may be interpreted as either foul, but you certainly can't award thirty yards for KCI AND targeting.
So I still maintain that the single act is not two fouls, but an act that violates two rules and can therefore be interpreted as EITHER foul, but not both.
Now, to Mike's point that it doesn't have to be be KCI INSTEAD of targeting, he was absolutely correct.
-
He sort of said that. The direct quote was (I think) "Here we have a very serious kick catch interference foul that is really a targeting foul". He did not really address enforcing both b ut the rules as written would not permit that anyway. 2 live ball fouls so offended team ust choose the one they want. Had the player who picked up the ball in the Ark game ran backwards 20 yards before being tackled, the targeting penalty would have not been as good as the KCI penalty so KCI would have been accepted.
-
So I still maintain that the single act is not two fouls, but an act that violates two rules and can therefore be interpreted as EITHER foul, but not both.
What's wrong with treating them as two fouls? You'll only have one penalty, sure, but I'd say you still have two fouls.
-
As long as we agree that the offended team has two enforcement options, the rest is purely semantics.
-
I know that a basic tenet of penalty enforcment is "whatever's better for the offended team." as it should be. for the original KCI play in question, I agree that what the Team A player did can count as targeting. but I still have a nagging feeling that calling it targeting here perhaps goes a little beyond officiating into the realm of advocacy. as in: wow that was a vicious hit. and under our normal enforcment, you're not getting any yardage penalty. so let's see what we can do for you.
let's say the team A player didn't use his helmet. and instead he delivered a horrible, violent shoulder blow. (and team B picked it up as they did and advanced 20 yards). would we still seek to give them penalty yards? with targeting out, would we say: KCI. but also a flagrant PF. player ejected. and we'll tack on 15 to the dead ball spot for the PF?
-
RR may need to take the interpretation one step farther. If A legally recovers the kick, then calling it targeting would seem to require that we enforce at the previous spot, repeat the down. Calling it KCI would allow B to get the ball, but, technically, it lets the offender off the hook for the "automatic review" required by rule. I believe we need a rule change to make a targeting/defenseless player action that is also KCI either a spot foul or enforced at the spot where the dead ball belongs to B, whichever is more advantageous to B. Officially, it would be a targeting/defenseless player foul, which would trigger the automatic review.
-
but I still have a nagging feeling that calling it targeting here perhaps goes a little beyond officiating into the realm of advocacy. as in: wow that was a vicious hit. and under our normal enforcment, you're not getting any yardage penalty. so let's see what we can do for you.
What would you call if the same Team A player lays a vicious helmet to helmet hit on one of the Team B blockers while the kick is in the air instead of the Team B player in position to make the catch? Targeting right?
Why should team B be placed at a disadvantage because the foul was against a player that was in an even more vunerable position than the player in my example?
-
hear what you're saying welpe, and I agree with you. just saying that the kci enforcement rule, as written, seems to have a loophole for this kind of play. and calling it targeting KINDA seems like the officials looking for a way around the loophole. mind you, i'm not saying this is necessarily wrong. just saying I have a slightly funny feeling about it.
back to my question: if it was a vicious shoulder hit on the return man, would you support calling it a live ball PF and tacking on? or would you go with regular KCI and no extra yards for B?
-
You raise a good point in that regard and I think perhaps it would be usually regarded as just KCI. As Macman alluded to, we probably need some clarification on these types of plays that could be both a PF and KCI by rule. Rogers has given us some but a more concrete ruling would be helpful.
-
As I said in an earlier post, it would be very helpful if there was some clear rules language that stated that the KCI and the PF-Targeting were two distinct enforceable fouls with the option being to take the enforcement that provided the best result. I don't disagree that with the emphasis on targeting, defenseless players, etc. that this should be the case, but currently that language simply is not in the book.
-
RR may need to take the interpretation one step farther. If A legally recovers the kick, then calling it targeting would seem to require that we enforce at the previous spot, repeat the down. Calling it KCI would allow B to get the ball, but, technically, it lets the offender off the hook for the "automatic review" required by rule. I believe we need a rule change to make a targeting/defenseless player action that is also KCI either a spot foul or enforced at the spot where the dead ball belongs to B, whichever is more advantageous to B. Officially, it would be a targeting/defenseless player foul, which would trigger the automatic review.
If the hit is that violent, I don't see the worry about automatic review, it is gonna be reviewed, especially after the crew highlights it in the game report.
-
let's say the team A player didn't use his helmet. and instead he delivered a horrible, violent shoulder blow. (and team B picked it up as they did and advanced 20 yards). would we still seek to give them penalty yards? with targeting out, would we say: KCI. but also a flagrant PF. player ejected. and we'll tack on 15 to the dead ball spot for the PF?
The rules are fairly clear about what constitutes a personal foul. My idea of the "normal" KCI is the gunner who simply tackles or runs into the returner before he is elgible to do so. As soon as he does something that is also a PF, i.e. striking, tripping, or block below the waist (yeah I knew you would like that one); or targeting, then he has committed another foul and opened his team up to a potential tack on situation. A "violent shoulder hit" to the chest or midsection is not a PF in most situations nor should it be in a KCI situation. However, it could be deemed "flagrant" and still qualify for a DQ.
-
If the hit is that violent, I don't see the worry about automatic review, it is gonna be reviewed, especially after the crew highlights it in the game report.
I know of several instances when commissioners have wished that the crew had either DQ'd a player or called a targeting foul, to compel a review. Instead, they had to initiate a review without direct rule support, and they didn't like being in that position. But then, that's why they get the big bucks. In their defense, the more they can take control of players via reviews, the sooner the way the game is being played will change in the direction the Rules Committee appears to be committed toward moving. Which will will make the lives of on-field guys a bit easier.
-
9-6-3 is not enough rule support ? ! ? !
-
9-6-3 is not enough rule support ? ! ? !
Not if the foul wasn't officially classified as targeting, or they don't DQ on a UNR other than targeting. E.g., after a play, B32 shoves A11 in the facemask - not a huge striking blow, but possibly striking, and multiple players get into a brief grabbing/shoving scuffle. The on-field guys rule a common UNR by B32, and nothing else. No DIRECT rule support for a review, because a foul was called, but it wasn't deemed flagrant. The commissioner would much rather have an on-field ruling of flagrant (and DQ), so he doesn't have to make a decision as to initiate a review or not.
-
I've been trying to follow all of this .... I'm not in my "rule book jockey" mode now - just want to work the game on the field without worrying about "proving" my decision to the nth degree of rule book certainty.
Is it being suggested that a vicious hit on the kick receiving not requiring a DQ not involving targeting can be enforced from the "spot where the subsequent dead belongs to B" under 10-2-4, or a standard KCI enforcment?
10-2-4 specifically excludes KCI type fouls from tack ons.
Boy am I confused now!! hEaDbAnG
-
Not if the foul wasn't officially classified as targeting, or they don't DQ on a UNR other than targeting. E.g., after a play, B32 shoves A11 in the facemask - not a huge striking blow, but possibly striking, and multiple players get into a brief grabbing/shoving scuffle. The on-field guys rule a common UNR by B32, and nothing else. No DIRECT rule support for a review, because a foul was called, but it wasn't deemed flagrant. The commissioner would much rather have an on-field ruling of flagrant (and DQ), so he doesn't have to make a decision as to initiate a review or not.
The way I read 9-6-3 there can be a review even if NO foul was called and after that review, sanctions can be imposed. Don't hear about this happening much in the NCAA but seems fairly common in the NFL.
-
The rules are fairly clear about what constitutes a personal foul. My idea of the "normal" KCI is the gunner who simply tackles or runs into the returner before he is elgible to do so. As soon as he does something that is also a PF, i.e. striking, tripping, or block below the waist (yeah I knew you would like that one); or targeting, then he has committed another foul and opened his team up to a potential tack on situation. A "violent shoulder hit" to the chest or midsection is not a PF in most situations nor should it be in a KCI situation. However, it could be deemed "flagrant" and still qualify for a DQ.
A Team A player tackling a punt receiver is a holding infraction - a second foul in addition to KCI. Are you saying penalty enforcement for the holding foul would not qualify for tack on?
-
Oh boy....I am going out on a shaky ledge here...let's see if I can do this without taking a fall...
Honestly, until the last week or so I would have said no tack on as is only KCI. I am now thinking this could indeed be called holding. Much like the pitch man who gets laid out by a "block" and no foul, but if he is tackled (held) it is a foul when he is in position to receive a backwards pass.
If someone other than the returner were tackled by Team A during the kick you would not object to the tack on so why object if it is the returner who is tackled early?
As others have suggested, may be time for a rule change that permits penalty enforceent for KCI to be like that we do now for roughing the passer wherein the offended team gets the benefit of any yardage they gained plus the penalty yardage.
-
I've been trying to follow all of this .... I'm not in my "rule book jockey" mode now - just want to work the game on the field without worrying about "proving" my decision to the nth degree of rule book certainty.
Is it being suggested that a vicious hit on the kick receiving not requiring a DQ not involving targeting can be enforced from the "spot where the subsequent dead belongs to B" under 10-2-4, or a standard KCI enforcment?
10-2-4 specifically excludes KCI type fouls from tack ons.
Boy am I confused now!! hEaDbAnG
That's 'was' the crux of the issue, Z99. Technically - TECHNICALLY - if we officially classified a foul as KCI, we had no choice but to enforce from the spot of the foul. However, with the latest video plays from RR, he is telling us that we can re-classify a KCI foul as a targeting foul, thus, allowing us to add it to the spot where the dead ball belongs to B. It isn't really a 'choice' of two fouls; rather, it is deciding under which category the foul falls. If it is more than poorly timed contact, we have the ability to call it targeting (instead of KCI), which, of course allows the 'tack on.' A good directive, IMHO.
As previously noted, the 'gap' in this directive is when the kicking team is in legal possession of the ball at the end of the down. Then, if we classify the foul as targeting, we can't add it on - we'd have to enforce at the previous spot, and repeat the down. While that is consistent with any other Team A foul, I just wonder if that was considered by RR when he made the video directive. On the other hand, if we classify it as KCI, we can give the ball to B with the penalty at the spot of the foul. That may not seem like a big deal - just make it the one that is more advantageous to B - right?
Well, as I've pointed out, the difference is that, by rule, targeting triggers an automatic review by the conference; KCI does not. That may not seem like a big deal to some folks, but I know of some commissioners that have lamented to their respective staffs that they would have preferred that the on-field guys call a foul targeting (vs. a non-targeting UNR), or DQ a player, so a review would be automatic.
I'd just like to see the directive expanded to state that a targeting action in a KCI situation can be enforced at the spot of the foul (when A is in legal possession at the end of the down), but officially classified as targeting, to allow the automatic review.
-
Why the concern for the "automatic" review by the conference? The conference can certainly review plays at their discretion. In addition, coaches submit plays for review each week, and a foul that isn't called "targeting" will certainly be submitted by the aggrieved coach.
Is the "automatic" review really an issue?
-
but what about the enforcement of a non-targeting but vicious early contact on the kick receiver? Surely that's not enforceable at the subsequent dead ball spot, just the spot of the fall as a KCI.
On the targeting/KCI situation, I believe there are two fouls with two enforcement options available to R to take care of the situation where the subsequent dead ball spot is behind the spot of the foul.
-
I say that it can be enforceable at the spot where the dead ball belongs to B depending on what exactly the action consists of. If it is one of the listed personal fouls, it qualifies as a PF and therefore a tack on. if it is "just" a shoulder into the chest (also known as a "block") it is just KCI. If it is a "tackle", (meaning the player was grasped or encircled), it is a hold and is enforceable at the subsequent dead ball spot. But you are not going to get an enforcement for KCI and an additional enforcement (tack on) for some other foul.
-
I think we're losing control here. We have had the tack on for K fouls for a few years now. NEVER until now has anyone suggested early tackling of the receiver is anything other than a simple KCI enforcement!
I do not agree that this could be enforced at the subsequent dead ball spot.
-
Punt Play:
Returner B6 catches the kick at the B-10 and returns to the B-30. During the kick, gunner A88 grabs B20 (who was going to block for the returner) at the 15 and pulls him to the ground. Flag down for holding. This qualifies for prev spot enforcement or tack on to give B a 1st and 10 at the B-45.
On the next kick, A88 grabs B6 at the B-10 before the ball gets to him (he is trying to catch it) and pulls B6 to the ground. The ball bounces to the B-5 where B20 picks it up and returns it to the B-30. Why can't this holding foul be enforced to give B a 1st and 10 at the 45? You would make B decline the KCI (holding really) as that penalty would only give B the ball at the B-25? You are in effect giving A the chance to foul with impunity as long as the player fouled is the potential returner. That is illogical Cpt Kirk.
-
but what about the enforcement of a non-targeting but vicious early contact on the kick receiver? Surely that's not enforceable at the subsequent dead ball spot, just the spot of the fall as a KCI.
On the targeting/KCI situation, I believe there are two fouls with two enforcement options available to R to take care of the situation where the subsequent dead ball spot is behind the spot of the foul.
The fundamental concept that Rogers used in the video is this: If a single act by a player is both a non-personal foul and a personal foul, the offended team is not going to lose the option of enforcing the personal foul aspect of the play just because it happened to be a non-personal foul as well. In other words, enforce the penalty that helps the offended team the most.
The other example of this was mentioned in an earlier thread and is the same fundamental concept: DPI at 8 yards beyond the LoS that is also a targeting foul or is a face mask. Ruling: Enforce 15 yard foul from the previous spot whether the pass is incomplete or complete and dead at that spot. This just makes sense because if the PF aspect was just after the pass is touched it would not be DPI and would certainly be penalized at the previous spot. In this play, if we only penalize DPI, then the offense is effectively penalized because the defender was early and not late.
Also, simply tackling a kick receiver early is not a personal foul, so no option here other than KCI. Other than targeting fouls getting us into this scenario, the only thing I can think of would be FMM, but I guess there could be others.
-
Holding, block in the back, block below the waist, clipping, tripping, facemask, striking, targeting, chop block, hurdling (I know...what are the chances???), There may be more
-
Holding, block in the back, block below the waist, clipping, tripping, facemask, striking, targeting, chop block, hurdling (I know...what are the chances???), There may be more
once again, until I'm told by a higher authority that tackling the punt receiver early is a tack on if more advantageous, I'm not going to do it - I ain't tacking on nuttin but targeting ..... :) If, with hindsight, I should have I will plead nobody with authority told me to!!
Nothing says that our rules are logical, far from it.
I can understand the targeting logic by RR as that's such a big deal these days, but holding?
We'll leave it that we agreed to disagree.
Spock
-
once again, until I'm told by a higher authority that tackling the punt receiver early is a tack on if more advantageous, I'm not going to do it - I ain't tacking on nuttin but targeting ..... :) If, with hindsight, I should have I will plead nobody with authority told me to!!
Nothing says that our rules are logical, far from it.
I can understand the targeting logic by RR as that's such a big deal these days, but holding?
We'll leave it that we agreed to disagree.
Spock
1st - Get your role right. YOU are CPT Kirk. You occupy a much loftier and prestigous position than I. My role is to simply point out the illogical nature of you and your superiors and suggest quandries for which you are not yet providing sufficient answers. I am not of your world and am not restricted by the whims and desires of the supervisors to which you must answer.
2nd - If nobody told you to do something that you knew in your heart of hearts was the right and just thing to do, wouldn't you still do it? If you "know" it is right, you don't need to be told it is.
-
If we are expected to include penalty enforcement for tackling (holding) the receiver as an alternate choice to KCI, I'd like to to have a bigger fish announce a rewrite of AR 6-4-1-ll.
-
Rewrite not needed by any fish, large or small. Referring to that AR is like comparing tuna to Mahi-Mahi...Very different flavor my friend.
(http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Misc/Cartoon%20Ads/Charlie_Tuna_300.gif)
-
1st - Get your role right. YOU are CPT Kirk. You occupy a much loftier and prestigous position than I. My role is to simply point out the illogical nature of you and your superiors and suggest quandries for which you are not yet providing sufficient answers. I am not of your world and am not restricted by the whims and desires of the supervisors to which you must answer.
2nd - If nobody told you to do something that you knew in your heart of hearts was the right and just thing to do, wouldn't you still do it? If you "know" it is right, you don't need to be told it is.
ha ha
I've been called worse than "illogical" - it's just that we all live in the illogical world of football rules.
As to your your 2nd comment - you're assuming I have a heart. :) Plus I'm not a "break new trails" sort of guy. Maybe that and a ton of luck got me where I am today.
-
Rewrite not needed by any fish, large or small. Referring to that AR is like comparing tuna to Mahi-Mahi...Very different flavor my friend.
(http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Misc/Cartoon%20Ads/Charlie_Tuna_300.gif)
Enlighten me Charlie Tuna, how is the AR significantly different then the play on the table?
-
ha ha
I've been called worse than "illogical" - it's just that we all live in the illogical world of football rules.
As to your your 2nd comment - you're assuming I have a heart. :) Plus I'm not a "break new trails" sort of guy. Maybe that and a ton of luck got me where I am today.
Perhaps instead of looking at it as that has how you got where you are today you should look at it as that is what is keeping you where you are today and not allowing you to advance. ;-)
-
Enlighten me Charlie Tuna, how is the AR significantly different then the play on the table?
The AR "hold" is KCI but there is no benefit to a "tack on" on the play as the play has the returner catches the kick and falls to the ground immediately. In my play, there is a return so the tack on could become more valuable.
And yes, I realize if we called it (the AR play) a hold, team B might ask for previous spot enforcement and rekick and that possibility is not mentioned in the AR which implies it is not a possibility. I prefer to think that is simply something not considered by the Editor just as many of us never thought about the targeting vs KCI possibility until now.
-
The AR "hold" is KCI but there is no benefit to a "tack on" on the play as the play has the returner catches the kick and falls to the ground immediately. In my play, there is a return so the tack on could become more valuable.
You should read all the RULING, C.T.
Note, "The ruling would be the same had the kick been muffed or fumbled." It doesn't read, "The ruling would be the same had the kick been muffed or fumbled except if the subsequent dead ball belonged to Team B more than 5 yards in advance of the spot of the foul." Consequently, one can safely assume the location of the dead ball spot is not relevant to the RULING.
-
When I started this today I said I knew I was out on a shaky ledge. As I fall into the precipice all I can say is....I just don't think this scenario was ever completly thought through until now........
-
The rules are fairly clear about what constitutes a personal foul. My idea of the "normal" KCI is the gunner who simply tackles or runs into the returner before he is elgible to do so. As soon as he does something that is also a PF, i.e. striking, tripping, or block below the waist (yeah I knew you would like that one); or targeting, then he has committed another foul and opened his team up to a potential tack on situation. A "violent shoulder hit" to the chest or midsection is not a PF in most situations nor should it be in a KCI situation. However, it could be deemed "flagrant" and still qualify for a DQ.
I've been warming up to your targeting/tack on conga line, but this part where the needle skips across the record for me. how could something be flagrant enough for a DQ, but somehow NOT rise to the level of PF?
you seem to be saying the following (assume for all 3 that the return man B20 is fouled at the B-10 and Team B ends up advancing to midfield):
1. Gunner A80 is standing next to B20 and brushes up against him before the catch = flag KCI. declined
2. Gunner A80 sprints 40 yards, never slows down, and puts his helmet into B20's chest before the ball arrives, severely injuring B20 = flags for KCI and targeting. kci declined. targeting accepted. tack on to the A-35
3. Gunner A80 sprints 40 yards, never slows down, puts his shoulder into B20's chest before the ball arrives, severely injuring B20 = flag for KCI. A80 ejected for a flagrant foul, but it's not a personal foul. no tack on.
in for penny, in for a pound, imo. if #2 gets a tack on, how can #3 not? :D
-
how bout this for a solution: Just make any flagarant KCI eligible for tack on?
so that way, if we have a brush up, or an arm pull, or if the receiver has to detour around a Team A player---and team B still manages to advance the ball more than 15 yards--then there's no tack on. as there shouldnt be. (My guess is that this is the reason KCI isnt' a tack on to begin with. they probably envisioned a play where the foul wasn't even bad enough to prevent a good return, so why should B get bonus yards on top?)
but if the KCI is an ejectable offense, then we tack on. just to make sure that B doesn't get jobbed out of any yards after a brutal hit.
-
I think we're losing control here. We have had the tack on for K fouls for a few years now. NEVER until now has anyone suggested early tackling of the receiver is anything other than a simple KCI enforcement!
I do not agree that this could be enforced at the subsequent dead ball spot.
I think control was lost a long time ago on this issue....
-
I had a personal conversation with RR and he agrees the rule book doesn't seem to allow the penalty to be tacked on (expect that to change with the next edition). He also said the crew didn't enforce the penalty incorrectly. He simply said that in this particular case, it would have been acceptable to tack the penalty on to the dead ball spot (even though the rule book doesn't seem to allow it). As I said very early on, it's plays like this that lead to rules/editorial changes. On the field, we can't make the rules up as we go along, but now that RR has weighed in we know how it should be handled. To try to compare a play like this to a hold doesn't make sense to me.
-
Have you seen the play and his narration in the latest CFO video ?
-
Have you seen the play and his narration in the latest CFO video ?
Yep. And I also know what he told me when we talked.