Targeting/UNR/Nothing?

[clearwall]

Which of these, if any, would you call either targeting or UNR or neither? If you watched this game, you know that one was called and one was not.

After an INT, B22 comes in(the one who INT the ball) at the end of the clip. #98 is the QB who gets blown up.


Pretty self-explanatory here, B80 explodes on A98. Is this a crouch and thrust?

[Legacy Zebra]

I've got targeting on B10 in the first one. Forcible contact of the head of a defenseless player because it is the QB after a change if possession. I've got nothing on the second one. White 80 looks to deliver a forearm to the chest and it is right by the ball carrier so no UNR.

[clearwall]

You and I agree, Legacy. If you saw the game, you know that the exact opposite was what happened. Clip 1 was not called, clip two was called for UNR and had a pick-6 wiped off the board.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Both tough hits but not sure that in the 2 clips that the initial contact was illegal.  Neither player was "out-of-the-play" and the initial contact was not "above the shoulders" or helmet to helmet.  Both hits were by players going at speed in opposite directions which makes for violent contact but after watching frame by frame not sure that we have any fouls here.  That being said, with a single view in real time at field level, I don't believe that I would disagree if the hits drew flags.

[Legacy Zebra]

not sure that in the 2 clips that the initial contact was illegal.

Remember this year for targeting it's not the initial contact, it's forcible contact. Even if the initial contact is below the neck, if there is forcible contact to the head/neck it is still targeting.

[clearwall]

I just realized I put these in backwards order...Zebra,I change my statement of agreeance with you. In the top clip, B10's contact is with his chest into the side of A98. The only question I would have is, since the QB is now classified as 'defenseless' how far does that protection last? To me, he is making an attempt on the ball here and loses that.

Second clip, to me, that looks like a crouch and thrust to the helmet.

[Legacy Zebra]

A QB after a change of team possession is defenseless for the rest of the play. Just like a receiver, you can still hit him, you just can't hit him in the head or neck. I think it's pretty clear that B10's facemask makes forcible contact the head of A98.

Also, neither a crouch not a thrust is a foul. They are high risk indicators of targeting, but are not fouls in and of themselves. I see a forearm to the chest, which is a legal hit.

[dvasques]

I might not understand what "forcible" means since I'm not an english native. But I don't see any contact to the head that would make me call any of those clips.

I see hard hitting on the chest and side on the first clipe, with a possible contact between B10 facemask to the head of the opponent. But I would not call that forcible (done by force or violent).

And I see a very hard hit to the chest on the second clip with no contact to the head at all.

But I'd also not disagree to any of them being called on the field with the speed of the plays and all that

[NJOfficial]

I dont see contact to the head in the first one.  It appears that the defender launches himself, not sure if that is taken into consideration.

[clearwall]

 Here's  another close up angle at havent second clip. I'll see if I can find a better one for the first.

[Legacy Zebra]

I stand corrected. From that second view, I would have targeting for forcible contact the head or neck of a defenseless player (player receiving a blindside block).

[dvasques]

Not much of a doubt about the second one from this angle... that's why I said I wouldn't disagree with the call on the field

[InsideTheStripes]

Nothing. And. Nothing.

While the QB in the first clip is defenseless, that's a legal block. In the second clip (both views), the player isn't defenseless and the contact is not with the crown of the helmet.

[dvasques]

you don't see that as a blindside block?

[TxSkyBolt]

Flag on both plays. When in doubt, it's targeting.

[clearwall]

Flag on both plays. When in doubt, it's targeting.

If you were the replay official, what would you call after seeing it?

[TxSkyBolt]

Yes, we were told this year not to be so technical and that if the hit had any component above the shoulders, even secondary to the initial hit, it was targeting.

[Kalle]

I'd like to have both of these called, and the replay (if we had one) probably should reverse the first one.

[StudyingFutureZebra]

Second one, no foul. First one it doesn't matter whether or not it's targeting, the result should be the same. If you knock someone out in the commission of a personal foul, you're tossed, IMHO.

[TxSkyBolt]

Kinda like drawing blood in Hockey earns you an extra 3 minutes in the box


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JasonTX]

If you don't go with Targeting, you can still fall back to a Flagrant personal foul, regardless if its targeting or not.

[Wingmanbp]

The first one to me looks like chest to shoulder hit and perfectly legal even from blindside. The second after first video looked legal as well but from second video it is definitely targeting and should be called. But that just shows how much better of a view we have from the field.

[bossman72]

Nothing in both.  First clip there was no hit to the head.  Second clip, the defender is not defenseless and the crown of the helmet was not used

[clearwall]

I find the range of answers to this interesting. It seems we have no consensus about what really is targeting or not. I dont mean this as an indictment of anyone, just interesting how interpretive this foul still is

[Kalle]

Nothing in both.  First clip there was no hit to the head.  Second clip, the defender is not defenseless and the crown of the helmet was not used

You don't think the defender gets blindsided in the second clip?