« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: More Targeting  (Read 8013 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
More Targeting
« on: October 08, 2017, 09:16:00 PM »
You Make The Call!!   https://youtu.be/KS0vaZ48Wi4
Logged

Offline DallasLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 568
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-15
Re: More Targeting
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2017, 10:31:32 PM »
I got nothing.  1 step from hit, Returner drops to his knees.  Defender was committed to running through the tackle.  No forcible contact to head or neck, no indicators of targeting, and no late hit.

  IMHO
Logged

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 4669
  • FAN REACTION: +190/-189
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: More Targeting
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2017, 11:15:20 PM »
This one is definitely gray.  Agree with DallasLJ, but my problem with this is that the hitter is only interested in hitting the receiver as hard as he can, and not making a tackle.  If these guys will attempt to tackle by wrapping up, that will change almost every questionable contact to an easy ‘no foul.’

Robert
Logged

Offline getnbetter

  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-1
Re: More Targeting
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2017, 11:55:02 PM »
While I agree that there is no foul, I disagree that there was no forcible contact to the head, neck or shoulders as there clearly was contact with the forearm to the head.  However, I see this as a position change and no foul should be called.
Logged

Offline scrounge

  • *
  • Posts: 228
  • FAN REACTION: +35/-23
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: More Targeting
« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2017, 03:37:56 PM »
I agree with the change in level by the receiver making it no foul - but I'm totally fine with and would support a call of targeting if that's what the on-field guys called.
Logged

Offline Sonofanump

  • *
  • Posts: 327
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-3
Re: More Targeting
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2017, 09:04:47 PM »
Quote from: getnbetter on October 08, 2017, 11:55:02 PM
forearm to the head

His follow thru makes this look like a clear indicator forearm to the head.  Player is defenseless, I think replay would call this a foul.
Logged

Offline Joe Stack

  • *
  • Posts: 637
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-46
Re: More Targeting
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2017, 01:25:06 AM »
Quote
No forcible contact to head or neck, no indicators of targeting, and no late hit.

I think you can argue there was forcible contact, and one of the indicators of targeting is "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm ..."

Is this a hit that needs to be out of the game?

With all that said, I probably would not have flagged this.
Logged

Offline hefnerjm

  • *
  • Posts: 331
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-23
  • Everyone needs a student, a mentor, & a friend
Re: More Targeting
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2017, 03:13:48 PM »
9.1.4 - 2 parts: 

1) defenseless player -- A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has
completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself
or has not clearly become a ball carrier.  -- I think we would all agree that this criteria is met.

2) contact to head/neck - No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head
or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet,
forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

This one is tougher to decide, and is the judgment aspect of the play.  We could have 50 officials look at this and have 50 opinions.

Lets talk mechanics.  I think the BJ is in great position, but might not see where the initial contact comes from based on which side the kicking team player is coming from.  Who else could help on this?




[attachment deleted by admin]
Logged
Coach: "I've been doing this 30 years!  I know the rules!"
Ref: "Are you married coach?"
Coach (suddenly offguard): "umm...yeah, why?"
Ref: "I've been married 30 years and my wife says there is still room for improvement"
Coach: "<silence>"

Offline bctgp

  • *
  • Posts: 280
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-10
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: More Targeting
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2017, 04:29:31 PM »
Anyone know if they had illegal uniforms on TEAM B in the clip?
Logged

Offline #92

  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-13
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: More Targeting
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2017, 01:51:32 AM »
Seems to me the Team A player didn't try to get low enough. I've tried to draw a line through the Team B shoulders to indicate the highest point of legal contact. The Team A player clearly initiates contact above that line.



And because it's quasi impossible to commit TGT without the indicator "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area", there is an indicator.

If the idea behind 9-1-4 is to get those high hits out of the game, why is this not targeting?
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »