Great defense in Tn game

[ruimpartial43]

A defender on the University of Tennessee's football team was ejected last night for targeting. Not only was this the wrong call, but it was also a catch and a fumble. To be clear, the young defender did NOT lead with his helmet. The replay clearly shows the player initiate contact with his shoulder. It was a great play, and a player was ejected for it? How embarrassing it must be to get a call so clearly defined so WRONG.

[chaoslord]

A defender on the University of Tennessee's football team was ejected last night for targeting. Not only was this the wrong call, but it was also a catch and a fumble. To be clear, the young defender did NOT lead with his helmet. The replay clearly shows the player initiate contact with his shoulder. It was a great play, and a player was ejected for it? How embarrassing it must be to get a call so clearly defined so WRONG.

So there is no video in your post so it's hard to talk much about the play, but in reference to the bolded part of your post, 9-1-4 says:

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

Leading with the shoulder doesn't mean it is okay.

[scrounge]

It would help if you actually knew the rules in question here and didn't just go on a fanboy rant. There are two parts of the targeting rule, the initiating contact with the crown of your helmet (leading with your helmet in fanboy parlance) BUT ALSO a separate rule for initiating contact above the shoulders on a defenseless player PERIOD. Shoulder, arm, helmet, elbow, whatever.

Yea, the TN defender tried to put his head to the side, much like Corey Smith from OSU did in the Big Ten championship game last year. He also very clear hit the receiver pretty forcibly in the neck and chin area. You want to have a reasonable discussion on whether the WR had established and was no longer defenseless? Fine...but if you judge him still defenseless, then this is a pretty easy call to me. I have no issue with it.

https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/693131FD1F1272428643805003776_43d34330826.2.0.958188460397013131.mp4?versionId=bGNst7XL9KWFm0Pa9x5QflZfjQzspdbZ

[Kalle]

Actually, rule 9-1-4 no longer talks about initiating contact in the head-neck area. It is enough if the contact to the head-neck area is forcible, even if the initial contact is to eg. shoulder.

[BrendanP]

I think the better argument for you to make is that they got the call right and that's the problem. I have my own misgivings about the 2014-present version of the targeting rule, and I honestly think that the rule the HS association in my state adopted is much better. Here, you have to intentionally and viciously nail the player's head with the crown of your helmet. I actually threw a flag for that this season. The CB lowered his head and drove the crown of his helmet into the ball carrier's facemask. Nevertheless, it is what it is, and hopefully the rules committee will take a look at the rule as it's written and make changes in the offseason.

I think another burning question was how the hit that knocked Michigan's QB out of the game wasn't targeting, nor was it even flagged. The defender launched through the air and basically grasped the QB's helmet and ripped it clean off. Here the UM student/fan in me is going to come out, but we got royally screwed two games in a row by that rule, one of them where the player was pushed into the ball carrier, and when it knocks our QB out of the game for what appears to me to be a textbook call by the way the rule is written, no flag. 

Arrright, time to put the stripes back on.

[Joe Stack]

honestly think that the rule the HS association in my state adopted is much better. Here, you have to intentionally and viciously nail the player's head with the crown of your helmet.

You're joking, right??

When you see what you consider forcible contact to the head or neck area, that isn't enough for you to believe that kind of hit should be out of the game?

[Kalle]

Nevertheless, it is what it is, and hopefully the rules committee will take a look at the rule as it's written and make changes in the offseason.

If the rules committee makes changes it is going to to include more players as defenseless (or perhaps get rid of the concept entirely making all high hits illegal). Due to the high injury potential of high hits the NCAA will never get rid of the current 9-1-4.

[BrendanP]

You're joking, right??

When you see what you consider forcible contact to the head or neck area, that isn't enough for you to believe that kind of hit should be out of the game?

Honestly, I think that some of the calls, namely the two that involved Michigan and the call discussed here, should not be an ejection, if not a no-call to begin with. I understand the intent of it, and again. I've thrown the flag for it myself, but I think we need to take a look at the rule as a whole and see what we can do about the bad while still working toward the goal. The cliche police will arrest me for saying this, but there's got to be a middle ground.

[DallasLJ]

The middle ground is to hit in the middle --- not high.  Head shots should not be tolerated.  And, at least for now, ejection is really the only remedy to convince the coach AND THE PLAYER not to hit in the head area.

[Rulesman]

Honestly, I think that some of the calls, namely the two that involved Michigan and the call discussed here, should not be an ejection, if not a no-call to begin with. I understand the intent of it, and again. I've thrown the flag for it myself, but I think we need to take a look at the rule as a whole and see what we can do about the bad while still working toward the goal. The cliche police will arrest me for saying this, but there's got to be a middle ground.

The rule isn't going away, Brendan. Neither is it going to be loosened up. Accept it and deal with it.

[BrendanP]

The rule isn't going away, Brendan. Neither is it going to be loosened up. Accept it and deal with it.

You don't need to be condescending.

[Osric Pureheart]

Unintentional contact is just as capable of causing brain injury as intentional contact.

[Etref]

You don't need to be condescending.

I did not read it as being condescending but when you start to pay for this board maybe you can have a gripe

Not that is condescending. See the difference!

[Rulesman]

You don't need to be condescending.

You must have awfully thin skin.

[Rulesman]

                                                      good luck there.  its his board so he can be classless if he wants to

Spoken like a true professional.

[george7244]

Spoken like a true professional.

.  Just call it as i see it

[TxSkyBolt]

I disagree with rulesman but neither of us has a crystal ball. I for one think the rule will evolve to more like the NFL rule. I believe the harsh penalty for the first offense has done its job and it's time to tweak the rule. Maybe a two tier deal like the AAC Supe recommends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BrendanP]

I disagree with rulesman but neither of us has a crystal ball. I for one think the rule will evolve to more like the NFL rule. I believe the harsh penalty for the first offense has done its job and it's time to tweak the rule. Maybe a two tier deal like the AAC Supe recommends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just read Mr. M's interview with CBS Sports on that subject, and I would 100% support his idea both as a fan and as an official, and frankly I might submit this as an idea to my state. Here, there's no automatic ejection-you could do it 100 times in a game and not be automatically tossed. I honestly think this is the way to make everybody happy and achieve the goal of taking helmet contact out of football.

[DallasLJ]

I just read Mr. M's interview with CBS Sports on that subject, and I would 100% support his idea both as a fan and as an official, and frankly I might submit this as an idea to my state. Here, there's no automatic ejection-you could do it 100 times in a game and not be automatically tossed. I honestly think this is the way to make everybody happy and achieve the goal of taking helmet contact out of football.

  Mr M?

[BrendanP]

The AAC Officiating coordinator. Looks like we're not supposed to name names, but he was the white hat in Super Bowl 48

[mishatx]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25349152/inside-college-sports-footballs-targeting-rule-needs-to-be-fixed

[SD_Casey]

I disagree with rulesman but neither of us has a crystal ball. I for one think the rule will evolve to more like the NFL rule. I believe the harsh penalty for the first offense has done its job and it's time to tweak the rule. Maybe a two tier deal like the AAC Supe recommends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read the article and on the surface, this looks like something I could get behind.  1 flagrant TGT and you're still gone (just like with any other PF) or 2 "vanilla" ones.

That said, what would be the disadvantage of this?  As I said, on the surface it looks like a good idea but there's got to be an unintended consequence that I'm not seeing.

 

[dvasques]

to me, the way the rules are now, there is minimum judgement by the officials. It is what it is and if it's TGT you're out.
The purpose of the rules as they are now is to take head shots away from the game and I remember RR saying in on of the game reviews this season that that kind of hit is back on an upward trend.

If you call flagrant or 2 non-flagrant for DQ you have to trust official's judgement on whether the hit is flagrant or vanilla. I believe this issue is not to be a judgement one, at least until there is a massive cut on those head shots

here in Brasil we still see no need for the auto DQ on TGT because it's not a common hit to happen. So right now, we are on the flagrant only DQ. But if hits to the head start increasing around here, we will make the auto DQ to cut them down for sure

[psv]

I, for one, like the rule.  I like the ejections, and I like the way it has been called, even though some of my Alma Mater have been ejected this year (2 that I know of).

If we want to have a game to continue to officiate, this change in mind set *MUST* be made.  There is nothing saying that football has to continue in prominence.

I am already seeing fewer players at the peewee level.  Few kids, fewer parents letting their son's play football.

There are still kids who hit plenty high in high school.  They are taught that from somewhere.  I havent had to eject anyone yet (in 7 years of officiating I have only called targeting once, and that was before the ejection was in place).

So, that is my .02 worth.  Keep it as it is.

[TxBJ]

If we want to have a game to continue to officiate, this change in mind set *MUST* be made.  There is nothing saying that football has to continue in prominence.

👍