Nebraska targeting

[BrendanP]

I'm sitting in the stadium, and I have to say this is the most ridiculous call of the year and we've got to do something to fix this rule. The player wraps up and turns his head to avoid contact. You can't defend the targeting rule as its written after this incident, and the Bolden one in October. We've got to re-wrote the rule and fix this.

[curlyrefjd]

didn.t look any better on tv--confirmed?

[SouthGARef]

Agree that it's an absolute shame that this kid is ejected for this. Not at all intentional or malicious and he's trying to do the right thing.

Also can't blame the crew. They're just doing what they're told to do. Meets all the criteria.

[SouthGARef]

didn.t look any better on tv--confirmed?

Easy to confirm that via 9-1-4.

1) Defenseless player? Check.
2) Contact to the head/neck area? Check.
3) Forcible contact? Check.

[BrendanP]

Easy to confirm that via 9-1-4.

1) Defenseless player? Check.
2) Contact to the head/neck area? Not even close.
3) Forcible contact? Not even close.

Fixed that for you. Sorry to be jaded here, but this is ridiculous. The higher ups need to pulll their heads out of their-you know-and fix this. This is absolutely ridiculous. We can get dangerous hits out of the game without penalizing legal tackles like this. Wrapping up is now targeting. What's been emphasized on this site and in coaching as a way of avoiding getting flagged? WRAPPING UP.

So how do we fix it? Here's how we word it:

"No player shall lead with the helmet or leave his feet to initiate a hit and/or intentionally contact the helmet of a ball carrier. When in question, it is not a foul."

[SouthGARef]

If you're going to look at this video and tell me that there wasn't contact to the helmet, the conversation is over because we're not talking about the same thing.

[scrounge]

Fixed that for you. Sorry to be jaded here, but this is ridiculous. The higher ups need to pulll their heads out of their-you know-and fix this. This is absolutely ridiculous. We can get dangerous hits out of the game without penalizing legal tackles like this. Wrapping up is now targeting. What's been emphasized on this site and in coaching as a way of avoiding getting flagged? WRAPPING UP.

So how do we fix it? Here's how we word it:

"No player shall lead with the helmet or leave his feet to initiate a hit and/or intentionally contact the helmet of a ball carrier. When in question, it is not a foul."

I don't think it was a foul because I thought the contact was more incidental than forcible and that the receiver lowered his level a little and came into the target zone. But it was close...to say it wasn't is just fanboy hyperbole and you lose all credibility. And your proposed rule language is simply ridiculous.

[Dakota Dan]

Easy to confirm that via 9-1-4.

1) Defenseless player? Check.
2) Contact to the head/neck area? Check.
3) Forcible contact? Check.

I agree with 1.
I do not agree with 2.
I strongly disagree with 3.

This is in no way a Target call; nor, should have
been confirmed as a Target call.

[Kalle]

If you're going to look at this video and tell me that there wasn't contact to the helmet, the conversation is over because we're not talking about the same thing.

This action definitely should not qualify as targeting. Remember that the rules do require the targeting aspect which is missing here.

"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area"

[NVFOA_Ump]

This action definitely should not qualify as targeting. Remember that the rules do require the targeting aspect which is missing here.

"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area"

I've got to agree with Kalle here.  Have we lost site of the critical wording that's in multiple places in the book that repeatedly attempts to stress that we have to have two elements together to get the targeting foul:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4).

I don't see how a textbook wrap-up tackle where the tackler and receiver go down together can be judged to meet the targeting half of the rule.  IMO if this one is targeting because the two facemasks touched then the rule's broken and needs some serious work.

And for the "checklist" guys who want this call to be simple, IMO you're missing the threshold requirement that the initial contact per 9.1.4 (the first half of the rule) qualifies as targeting, before you get to the second half of the rule (the checklist):
 
0) Did the tackler target the receiver? IMO no.
and (if 0 is yes)
1) Defenseless player?
2) Contact to the head/neck area?
3) Forcible contact?

[TXMike]

Yep you added the missing piece , the "targeting".   I was surprised IR let it stand.  It even appeared the S was shaking his head in disagreement after the review.  Let's hope it makes the CFO video

The complete video from game.  Be sure to watch S reaction over Nebraska coach at end of clip.  (I would have loved to hear the conversation between the Neb player and UCLA coach during the review)   
https://youtu.be/_A_VC-CVtbo

[Bigguy]

This is the not  the first bad targeting call that wasn't overturned this year.   I think part of it may be the makeup of replay officials.  They are usually people who know and can recite the rule book front to back. I think sometimes they get to caught up in the words and don't or can't make common sense applications of the rules. JMO

[SouthGARef]

I've got to agree with Kalle here.  Have we lost site of the critical wording that's in multiple places in the book that repeatedly attempts to stress that we have to have two elements together to get the targeting foul:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4).

I don't see how a textbook wrap-up tackle where the tackler and receiver go down together can be judged to meet the targeting half of the rule.  IMO if this one is targeting because the two facemasks touched then the rule's broken and needs some serious work.

And for the "checklist" guys who want this call to be simple, IMO you're missing the threshold requirement that the initial contact per 9.1.4 (the first half of the rule) qualifies as targeting, before you get to the second half of the rule (the checklist):
 
0) Did the tackler target the receiver? IMO no.
and (if 0 is yes)
1) Defenseless player?
2) Contact to the head/neck area?
3) Forcible contact?

This is actually the best argument I've heard against the call. And I'm inclined to agree with it.

But when you combine the "when in doubt" aspect of 9-1-4 and the "indisputable evidence" aspect of IR, it's pretty hard for an IR guy to overturn a targeting call when there WAS contact with the shoulder to the helmet.

[TXMike]

I don't have a clue about the C's job but he appeared to be Looking right at it and no flag. Seems in a 8 man crew there should be at least 2 sets of eyes on most targeting calls and when there are 2 but only 1 flag the spidey sense see something may be amiss

[Legacy Zebra]

I've only worked a limited amount of C, but I don't think he would have a look at this. He'd most likely still be with his tackle or working that direction. That being said, this is exactly like the play in the Texas Tech-Oklahoma State game that was confirmed by replay and then later supported by the Big 12. I agree that it lacks the "targeting and" part of the rule, but if past decisions are indicators, this will be supported as well.

[TXMike]

regardless of what the mechanics are, look at the C in the video.  He appears to be turning and the only thing he could be looking at is the catch area

[Bigguy]

This is where the problem lies.  Whomever reviews these will stand by it because they are more afraid of publicity around player safety then making correct calls.  Thus the officials involved think they did a good job. And the cycle continues. 

[bjfb]

Looks like the ACC takes it on the chin again with another questionable call.

[TxSkyBolt]

C might have been looking Mike, but shouldn't have been. He stays with QB. QB wasn't threatened so eventually C looks for ball to determine when to move forward. Maybe he got there in time. Regardless we're taught that there needs to be a conversation between members of the crew who had a look before the flag stays on the ground.

The U is looking at the action also.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SJ_2010]

Why at the end of his announcement  did the R say UCLA has elected not to use a 10 second run off?  This foul does not qualify for a 10 SRO as it does not stop the clock.  Furthermore if the crew believed it did qualify and UCLA declined the 10 SRO then the clock should start on the snap yet the R wound the clock??? 

[Bkjdg]

This is actually the best argument I've heard against the call. And I'm inclined to agree with it.

But when you combine the "when in doubt" aspect of 9-1-4 and the "indisputable evidence" aspect of IR, it's pretty hard for an IR guy to overturn a targeting call when there WAS contact with the shoulder to the helmet.

While it might be true that "it's pretty hard for an IR guy to overturn" then why did he confirm rather than let the play stand? That is the problem I had with the IR call. While there was contact, it was not forcible contact. The defender lowered his strike zone, but you can see the receiver lower his head (after the defender turns his head so he doesn't initiate contact with the crown) to create the contact.

Are there any replay officials on this thread who can talk about their role in reviewing targeting? I would think it would be to make sure that all the elements are involved and the call on the field is correct. If all they are looking for is if there is contact above the shoulders, then their role needs to be expanded.

[Sonofanump]

  It even appeared the S was shaking his head in disagreement after the review.  Let's hope it makes the CFO video.

Thinking out loud here:

I think the S would have the block downfield, and unable to take the H off the play before it was announced.  Maybe only saw the replay on the screen, and reacted to that.

[TXMike]

I think it was the L (in the H position ) who made call. S would have only seen on Jumbotron

[Bigguy]

Thinking about it.  The thing that's horrible about the call was the ejection, not necessarily the penalty.   That's what they need to change is the automatic ejection.  Ejection should be for flagrant fouls.

[Sonofanump]

Perhaps the replay official should be given more autonomy instead of confined to a strict rule 12.