« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: "Targeting" and Helmet Off  (Read 9536 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
"Targeting" and Helmet Off
« on: August 29, 2014, 07:25:25 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU3qipqYax8

I guess this is a NFHS game ? 
Logged

Offline NoVaBJ

  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-8
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2014, 01:26:38 PM »
San Diego is CA and NFHS.  Targeting is newly defined this year, but does not automatically carry a disqualification with it.
Logged

Offline Rob S

  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-0
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2014, 06:24:41 PM »
Quote from: NoVaBJ on August 29, 2014, 01:26:38 PM
San Diego is CA and NFHS.  Targeting is newly defined this year, but does not automatically carry a disqualification with it.

May have been on San Diego TV, but those are not San Diego teams or officials.
Logged

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2014, 07:41:40 PM »
Reed HS is in Sparks, Nevada. Mountain Pointe HS is in Phoenix. MaxPreps shows they played on Aug 23 in a 66-13 thriller.
Logged
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline NorCalMike

  • *
  • Posts: 770
  • FAN REACTION: +23/-8
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2014, 01:07:35 AM »
That game was played in Las Vegas last week. Reed spent their first to weeks playing out of state. I did their game against Clovis North today in Northern California.
Logged

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 758
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-13
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2014, 03:25:05 PM »
I have a hard time calling targeting in the first place on this. Am I not seeing something? B looks to be attempting a LEGAL tackle but the fact that A is wrapped up and going down causes the contact to be to the head. I have nothing here.
Logged

Offline goodgrr

  • Roger Goodgroves
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-12
  • We are always learning
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2014, 02:32:33 AM »
I'm glad you said that, I was struggling to see it and thought it was just me not understanding the correct interpretation.
Logged

cmathews

  • Guest
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2014, 10:14:52 AM »
wow, for once I am on the side of calling this one LOL...he is wrapped up and going down...with that said why does the 3rd defender need to come in, and lay a hit on the runner.  By NFHS standards he is certainly defenseless, I think NCAA he is defenseless because he is wrapped up, and the defender certainly makes forcible contact above the shoulders and it is with a forearm....all the antennae raising criteria are there.  Something has to happen here, the helmet comes off, so either the runner has to leave the game or there is a penalty that caused it to happen.....Like I said usually I am on the other side of these arguments, such that it is, but I agree with targeting here.
Logged

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 758
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-13
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2014, 07:10:36 PM »
I don't see any of the high risk indicators as prescribed by CFO for targeting. The defender is attempting to make a 'heads up tackle' and if the runner wasn't being pulled into the tacklers shoulder, contact with the head would never have been made. There is no launch, no leading with the crown, no crouch & thrust and no LEADING with the shoulder(although contact with it is made). I don't see the intent to deliver an illegal hit here.
Logged

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 4191
  • FAN REACTION: +107/-351
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2014, 09:14:54 PM »
I'm not going to second guess the call here.  It happens really fast but the 2nd defender (B-9) definitely lowers his head last minute and comes in with the crown of his helmet and what appears from the angle of the video to make serious contact.  If the call was actually on B-9 then I'd have to agree.

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 09:20:01 PM by NVFOA_Ump »
Logged
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 758
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-13
Re: "Targeting" and Helmet Off
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2014, 03:03:43 PM »
Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on September 03, 2014, 09:14:54 PM
I'm not going to second guess the call here.  It happens really fast but the 2nd defender (B-9) definitely lowers his head last minute and comes in with the crown of his helmet and what appears from the angle of the video to make serious contact.  If the call was actually on B-9 then I'd have to agree.

I have to disagree, he lowers his head, but he does not use the "crown of the helmet". Look in your second picture, you can see the defender's face which indicates his head is turned. The crown, being the top of the helmet would mean his face should be pointing to the ground. Then, after the clips you provide, his head goes to the SIDE of the ball carrier. There is clearly no crown contact. Now, if you want to argue that he initiated forcible contact with his shoulder, I think you have a bit of an argument.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »