Author Topic: TXMike's Targeting Play  (Read 7226 times)

Offline Arbitrator

  • Chief Manor Road Pig Poker
  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-10
TXMike's Targeting Play
« on: November 24, 2013, 11:52:54 AM »
 ^flag

TXMike:

The targeting play that you had on HUDL just lately is somewhat questionable. I don't really think that it fully meets all of the parameters of it, but then again, that might just be me.

Post it up on here and try to get some feedback from our Refstripe's brethren!  z^

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2013, 12:01:15 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAjM0qknmYY


The biggest issue on that play for me is the fact that this is EXACTLY what I wrote about in my suggestions to the UIL for UIL exceptions this year.  They have the ability to except out NCAA rules and I argued we should except out the automatic DQ.  Absolutely leave the DQ possibility in there but do not make it mandatory. As we have seen all season long in major college games, even they are not getting it right on the field with the degree of correctness we would want for a foul that requires a DQ.  I understand the UIL is in a difficult position because if they except out the auto DQ it may seem they are not taking a safety rule serious and could expose them to legal liability.   They are in a very difficult spot.  I just wish they would give us the flexibility back to DQ when we believe appropriate. 
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 12:47:41 PM by TXMike »

Offline Arbitrator

  • Chief Manor Road Pig Poker
  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-10
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2013, 01:42:52 PM »
 ^flag

Do you think that there's any possibility that the NCAA Rules Committee might actually end up amending this to that effect for the 2014 season?   z^

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2013, 01:56:34 PM »
Nope but I do think they will amend it such that if IR says no targeting then the 15 yard penalty goes away too.


Offline 940AC

  • *
  • Posts: 50
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2013, 02:12:30 PM »
I don't see targeting.
No intent from Team B player. 

Offline Cowman52

  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-2
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2013, 04:22:43 PM »
Ball carrier is going to the ground, team b player wanted to add a freebie to the tackle.  Back up a year or to and it was dang close to spearing.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2013, 04:28:14 PM »
That is something I have been trying to get guys to think about.  If you could forget all we have learned abiut "targeting " in the last several years and take yourself back in time, would you have called spearing here (when we had that rule)?

Offline DallasLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 529
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-15
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2013, 09:22:15 PM »
That was my thought.  And if it was "spearing" it is an ejection under the new rules.  Very close.

Offline Cowman52

  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-2
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2013, 10:06:20 PM »
I am of the opinion a lot of us have been around the game for longer than 5 years or so, most of us played when clipping was the big penality, and maybe a face mask was not around. Rodgers said we were at a cross roads over safety, tighten it up or we will all be out of a part time job.
  The defenseless player deal needs to be reworded somehow, if someone is defenseless, leave him the heck alone. I know coaches want to know just how close they can get to the edge without going over, but if player safety is our goal then safety is the only goal. The quarter back is only defenseless if you hit him in the head?  The cheap shot at the knees is legal?  You ever notice the smallest guy on the field is usually the one that is on the receiving end of a shady "block" or fore arm to the back of the helmet?
 And one more rant from an old guy who enjoys this game.  We need to be a lot less forgiving about this. If it was close to a foul then flag the guy and let him sit a game. When the stud safety is on the bench, the coach and player might refine their idea's.  Fewer penalties, fewer ejections, fewer injuries, more player's avoiding the concussions and knee injuries. 
  The coaches on the rules committee won't ever let it happen but maybe Rodgers is smart enough to hit a happy middle ground.
Just an old guy thinking out loud.

Online bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2286
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2013, 05:50:47 AM »
It appears to me that B-11 started his charge before it was apparent that the ball carrier was going to the ground.  If the runner hadn't been tackled by a teammate, B-11 would have made a "form" tackle at the runner's waist.

And, from a NFHS perspective, this wouldn't have raised my radar for a potential spearing foul.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2013, 06:50:46 AM »
This is from a MAC game last week   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ8kNUXfaS0


Offline Arbitrator

  • Chief Manor Road Pig Poker
  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-10
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2013, 08:36:49 AM »
This is from a MAC game last week   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ8kNUXfaS0

 ^flag

In this particular clip, I'd be prone to agree that, while it was helmet-to-helmet contact, that it like the previous clip, is indeed a personal foul, and not subject to fully meeting the criteria for targeting ~ and therefore, no ejection!  z^

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2013, 08:48:03 AM »
What is the foul?

Offline Birddog

  • *
  • Posts: 178
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-2
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2013, 09:28:46 AM »
Looks like to me it's the old fashion "spearing" which is automatic ejection. 

Offline DallasLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 529
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-15
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2013, 03:53:38 PM »
What is the foul?
Lowered his head, led with the crown of the helmet.  9-1-3.  Not a defenseless player, but this is not required for a 9-1-3 foul.  Should have been ejected.  9-1-3 specifically says "when in question, it is a foul."

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2013, 04:06:15 PM »
That is what I think also.  I was wondering what PF Arbitrator had since he said it was not targeting.

Offline Arbitrator

  • Chief Manor Road Pig Poker
  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-10
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2013, 08:41:36 PM »
That is what I think also.  I was wondering what PF Arbitrator had since he said it was not targeting.
^flag

In this particular clip, I'd be prone to agree that, while it was helmet-to-helmet contact, that it like the previous clip, is indeed a personal foul, and not subject to fully meeting the criteria for targeting ~ and therefore, no ejection!  z^

 ^flag

After blowing the play up and watching the slo-mo version, I very much stand corrected and agree that it does in fact meet the criteria for targeting, inclusive of ejection!  z^

Offline DallasLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 529
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-15
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2013, 08:43:12 PM »
^flag

After blowing the play up and watching the slo-mo version, I very much stand corrected and agree that it does in fact meet the criteria for targeting, inclusive of ejection!  z^
And they all said "Amen".

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 1859
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-45
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2013, 07:58:11 AM »
^flag

After blowing the play up and watching the slo-mo version, I very much stand corrected and agree that it does in fact meet the criteria for targeting, inclusive of ejection!  z^

Just like the guys on the field got to do.  ;)

Offline Arbitrator

  • Chief Manor Road Pig Poker
  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-10
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2013, 08:48:12 AM »
And they all said "Amen".

 ^flag

Verily! Hallelujah!

And while old bags of wind like myself might actually pass on the "fast-motion" of the activity on a play like this down between the white lines, it does not diminish the fact that it happened. Glad that I have a more youthful cast of characters on my crew that would readily pick up on that!

And on Thanksgiving Eve, that's something to be truly thankful for!   z^

Offline Zebra27

  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2013, 05:22:16 PM »
^flag

After blowing the play up and watching the slo-mo version, I very much stand corrected and agree that it does in fact meet the criteria for targeting, inclusive of ejection!  z^

But we don't get to do that in a game, so what are you going to call in real time?

Offline Arbitrator

  • Chief Manor Road Pig Poker
  • *
  • Posts: 682
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-10
Re: TXMike's Targeting Play
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2013, 06:50:30 PM »
But we don't get to do that in a game, so what are you going to call in real time?

 ^flag

We're either going to call it correctly to the best of our God-given ability and to the spirit and intent of the rules, or perhaps we're going to overlook it, by not completely seeing everything. And then we're also apt to perhaps call it the way we thought that we saw it, when the film may clearly indicate otherwise. It's largely a double-edged sword!

In any event we're going to call what we see, and live in the spirit and intent of the rules as they are, applauding ourselves when it is done correctly, and working to remedy things when we find out that they are not!

Nothing more, and nothing less!  Let the first set of stripes here that has never made a mistake stand up and take a bow ~ I'd like to extend to them the accolades that they so richly deserve! z^
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 06:55:52 PM by Arbitrator »