Penn State/Michigan targeting

[BrendanP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4cGO51EEcQ

Full disclosure, I'm a Michigan student, and though this benefited us, it's still upsetting. At first sight, I knew this was going to be upheld, but after further review, I don't think this fits the definition of the word "targeting" as in to take aim at. You can clearly see he's going for the ball, he's trying to intercept the deflected pass, not to take the receiver's head off. I think this makes a pretty good case for a basketball flagrant model.

[Bigguy]

Appears to be some big inconsistencies in the calling of these penalties. IMO The ucla game had obvious one they wouldn't call and penn state one I don't think should have been called.  ( mainly from the replay point of view)

 I think the big ten calls a lot of iffy (for lack of better word) targeting calls compared to other conferences. Jmo.

I think there needs to be a separation for targeting ( head hunting) from simply helmet contact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmBTWqnVa4w&ebc=ANyPxKr1JfaMYF8hMZZ6rXsnBINlghfPqoMXbOR-q95DfV5_obwxWbfaG6qB5EqjbgYDI9RGDZ8cg8LdNeEf1shw347U6ctO9A

[Kalle]

I think there needs to be a separation for targeting ( head hunting) from simply helmet contact.

That's what the rules already say (9-1-4 note 1). Dunno about how Big10 or other college conferences or CFO want it to be implemented, though.

[goodgrr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmBTWqnVa4w&ebc=ANyPxKr1JfaMYF8hMZZ6rXsnBINlghfPqoMXbOR-q95DfV5_obwxWbfaG6qB5EqjbgYDI9RGDZ8cg8LdNeEf1shw347U6ctO9A

As announced, he became a runner and there was no crown, therefore it was not targeting.

[scrounge]

As announced, he became a runner and there was no crown, therefore it was not targeting.

Which, except for that crown in the chin and the launch, I totally agree. Are we really going to Zapruder whether the crown is solely the very top? He launched and drove the forehead/front of crown right into the receiver's helmet, for the sole purpose of delivering a dangerous kill shot, showing a callous and wanton disregard for the safety of his opponent. I agree the receiver is no longer a defenseless player - I vehemently disagree that this was not targeting.

[BrendanP]

Does anybody know if the HL from yesterday's PSU/UM game is doing okay? He got hit in the face by a deflected pass. :\

[NVFOA_Ump]

As announced, he became a runner and there was no crown, therefore it was not targeting.

The UCLA play was 100% intentional crown of the helmet hit by the 2nd player to the runner.  IMHO this is EXACTLY the kind of play that should get targeting 100% of the time.  No attempt to wrap up the runner, and immediate "look at me" response from the UCLA player who delivered the hit.  IMO, gotta have flags on this one.

[BrendanP]

The crown is the top of the head, not the front. That most definitely does not rise to the term "egregious" to be able to unilaterally call it from the booth IMO.

[Aussie-Zebra]

As announced, he became a runner and there was no crown, therefore it was not targeting.

 

[Aussie-Zebra]

 

The UCLA play was 100% intentional crown of the helmet hit by the 2nd player to the runner.  IMHO this is EXACTLY the kind of play that should get targeting 100% of the time.  No attempt to wrap up the runner, and immediate "look at me" response from the UCLA player who delivered the hit.  IMO, gotta have flags on this one.

[Clear Lake ref]

The crown rule serves to also protect the guy doing the hitting. "See what you hit."

I have personally seen a broken neck and paralysis from using the crown.

This hit is not that. The intent is the literal top, where you risk spinal injury.

[BrendanP]

On the original topic, the Big Ten released this today:

During Saturday’s Penn State at Michigan football game, a Penn State defensive player was ejected for targeting with 14:55 remaining in the 2nd quarter. We do not find fault with the flag that was thrown by the on-field officials as they are instructed to prioritize player safety when making calls.

Targeting occurs when a player takes aim at an opponent, whether the crown of the helmet is used to make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent, or whether there is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent that goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block, or playing the ball.  In this particular play, the defender was making a legitimate attempt to get to the ball and, upon full review, the call of Targeting should have been reversed by the Replay Official.

My question is if this is the case, that when it's obvious that the player is going for the ball, why do these calls keep being upheld? This wasn't announced as call stands, it was confirmed. I think a better idea is to have the same standard that it takes for replay to create a foul: when in question, no foul. In order to be upheld, it must be beyond any reasonable doubt. If it's iffy, no foul.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The crown is the top of the head, not the front. That most definitely does not rise to the term "egregious" to be able to unilaterally call it from the booth IMO.

As of about 15 minutes ago an official CFO memo from RR (copy attached) was posted fine-tuning the rule to clearly say that "The crown of the helmet is the portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask."  So as of today's memo the "forehead" portion is in fact included as part of the "crown".

[attachment deleted by admin]

[BrendanP]

As of about 15 minutes ago an official CFO memo from RR (copy attached) was posted fine-tuning the rule to clearly say that "The crown of the helmet is the portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask."  So as of today's memo the "forehead" portion is in fact included as part of the "crown".

smh

[The Roamin' Umpire]

The UCLA play was 100% intentional crown of the helmet hit by the 2nd player to the runner.  IMHO this is EXACTLY the kind of play that should get targeting 100% of the time.  No attempt to wrap up the runner, and immediate "look at me" response from the UCLA player who delivered the hit.  IMO, gotta have flags on this one.

Concur 100%.  and sit him down.

[BrendanP]

And this is why I yearn for the good old days.

[InsideTheStripes]

As of about 15 minutes ago an official CFO memo from RR (copy attached) was posted fine-tuning the rule to clearly say that "The crown of the helmet is the portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask."  So as of today's memo the "forehead" portion is in fact included as part of the "crown".

How many officials does RR employ?

[Aussie-Zebra]

 

And this is why I yearn for the good old days.

Seriously ? You think it's a good idea for players to risk paralysis or even death ?

 

[NVFOA_Ump]

How many officials does RR employ?

When it comes to correctly enforcing the rules and the rules changes (of which this memo was one), IMHO everyone that uses the NCAA rulebook. As to who does our performance reviews, the answer to that one is a bit more complicated.

[ChicagoZebra]

How many officials does RR employ?

As I understand CFO to work - the major conference commissioners decided to come together to have consistent nationwide officiating rules, philosophies, and mechanics. Makes sense - college football long ago stopped being a regional game with the expansion of television. Fans and media will watch a Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, ACC, and SEC, game all on the same day. Because of that, each conference has given up some of their own abilities to judge their officials in the interest of said national consistency.

While RR may not employ officials, his rulings do determine how each conference will grade their own officials.

(Note: not a CFO official, so these are just my outsider observations. Happy to be corrected.)

[Rulesman]

Let's take the ambiguity out of it. RR DOES NOT employ officials.

[Reverend30]

Let's take the ambiguity out of it. RR DOES NOT employ officials.

That is true, but unless my direct supervisor gives me specific instruction contrary to an interpretation, clarification, or memo from RR delivered via CFO, I stick with RR's instruction, as do most if not all NCAA officials.

[Rulesman]

That is true, but unless my direct supervisor gives me specific instruction contrary to an interpretation, clarification, or memo from RR delivered via CFO, I stick with RR's instruction, as do most if not all NCAA officials.

what does that have to do with employing officials?

[NVFOA_Ump]

what does that have to do with employing officials?

I believe that you're missing the point here.  We all know that RR does not "employ" the officials.  I took the question as a misplaced and poorly structured attempt to say that we do what our supervisors instruct us to do, not what RR instructs us to do.  I disagree - #1 we enforce the rules as written, and ALSO #2 do our best to satisfy our supervisors ("employer") while doing it.

IMO the "How many officials does RR employ?" has no place in this discussion.  The memo issued on September 29th was an actual rules change delivered via CFO - not a "we'd like it done this way" guidance.

[Rulesman]

No, I didn't miss the point. But I do think you finally got the one I was trying to make. At least partially. You serve at the pleasure of your supervisor. You are an independent contractor. He is not your employer, any more than the conference is your employer. Unless, of course, the conference writes game checks. Might want to check your contract.