Author Topic: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3  (Read 679 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-3
Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« on: November 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM »
I have heard that other officials like the targeting call on #3.  I surely felt it was clean but I am often wrong.  What do you all think?  I am not a fan of either team and no stake in the game for what its worth.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8667
  • FAN REACTION: +227/-247
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2019, 10:27:32 PM »
https://youtu.be/wdFQkj5M9HY

Looks like a foul to me

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-9
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2019, 10:37:49 PM »
"Personal Foul, Targeting, Defense #3. The play is under further review."

"Upon review of the play, the ruling on the field of Targeting is confirmed. Number 3 has been disqualified from the game. The 15 yard penalty will be enforced from the end of the run. Automatic 1st down."

It's a targeting foul, enough said.

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-3
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2019, 10:42:30 PM »
Not sure saying that the replay official confirmed something means that enough is said.  Kinda defeats the point of conversation if that is accurate. I get why targeting was called but I just wish a little duck (IMO and not necessarily accurate) at the end of an otherwise clean tackle gets a player ejected.

It doesnt change anything from TXMikes video but here is another link:  https://youtu.be/qB9GPnwROhI

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3295
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-110
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2019, 05:37:22 AM »
Not sure what the question here is.  IMHO this is a textbook example of targeting - exactly the type of play that needs to be removed from the game.  Last minute the defender lowers his helmet and hits the receiver directly and forcibly in the head (front of the facemask) with the crown of his helmet.  Absolutely no reason that #3 could not have gone in "head up" and made a wrap-up tackle without the helmet first contact, or even better, lowered a shoulder, and made a wrap-up tackle at chest level.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 08:43:58 AM by NVFOA_Ump »
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1285
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-71
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2019, 09:22:21 AM »
Not sure saying that the replay official confirmed something means that enough is said.  Kinda defeats the point of conversation if that is accurate. I get why targeting was called but I just wish a little duck (IMO and not necessarily accurate) at the end of an otherwise clean tackle gets a player ejected.

It doesnt change anything from TXMikes video but here is another link:  https://youtu.be/qB9GPnwROhI

I have a feeling you didn’t write what you meant.  I think you believe this should not have been called targeting, and he should not have been disqualified.

Here is why it was, and he was:
The purpose of the targeting rules is to change the way the game has been played.  The primary focus of the rules is to get players to STOP using their helmets as weapons of punishment, and to stop players from focusing on the opponent’s head as a point of contact when blocking or tackling.
9-1-3 takes care of spearing, which has always been illegal, but was upgraded to targeting, with automatic disqualification.
9-1-4 covers contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless opponent.  There is a long list of what qualifies as ‘defenseless,’ and a receiver that has not yet transitioned to a ball carrier (by definition), as in this case, is on that list.
Both 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 require the contact the be an “attacking” action (as opposed to incidental contact), an “indicator,” and forcible contact.  There are a number of indicators, and leading with the head, as in this case, is an indicator.  You can call it a “little duck” if you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that this guy intentionally led with his head and made attacking contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless opponent. The “forcible contact” criterion is subjective, but the fact that receiver’s head snaps back violently pretty well confirms the ‘forcible contact’ element.

All of the boxes for 9-1-4 targeting are checked.  Therefore, this is targeting.

If he didn’t want to risk getting a targeting foul, he could have just as easily dropped and turned his body to lead with his shoulder into the chest/abdomen area of the receiver.  That would likely have had the same competitive effect, i.e, causing an incomplete pass, without resulting in a foul.

The targeting rules are working.  There are distinctly fewer targeting fouls than before these rules were implemented.  But the culture of punishing/hurting/inflicting pain on the opponent still persists.  Until that culture changes, we’ll still have targeting fouls.  When coaches teach, and players learn, to turn their heads to the side, and truly ‘tackle’ ball carriers (rather than just hit them as hard as possible), and avoid contact to the opponent’s head/neck areas, then targeting fouls will become unusual, if not rare.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3295
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-110
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2019, 08:52:19 PM »
 :thumbup  Elvis
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-3
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2019, 09:07:02 AM »
I agree with most everything that you all are saying.  If the group believes that a 9-1-3 crown of the helmet targeting call is warranted, I can live with that.  My issue is that RR has been harping on identifying an indicator for 9-1-4 targeting before calling that and I dont see an indicator.  There was clearly contact above the shoulders.  I am just wondering which of the indicators we are seeing. 

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1285
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-71
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2019, 10:09:52 AM »
I agree with most everything that you all are saying.  If the group believes that a 9-1-3 crown of the helmet targeting call is warranted, I can live with that.  My issue is that RR has been harping on identifying an indicator for 9-1-4 targeting before calling that and I dont see an indicator.  There was clearly contact above the shoulders.  I am just wondering which of the indicators we are seeing.

The very thing that you mentioned earlier - the “little duck,” actually, when he lowered and leaned forward with his head to lead with his head, and make contact to the head/neck area of the opponent.  That is “leading with helmet...”, which is one of the listed indicators.
What more do you need?
That was not a 9-1-3.  He didn’t use the crown of his helmet, which, by the way, also requires an indicator.  So, I don’t understand how you can “live with that,” but have heartburn with a 9-1-4 ruling.

As I said before, if these guys want to not get called for targeting, stop using the head to make contact.  Lower your body, hit with the shoulder, and wrap the arms around the opponent and attempt a real tackle.

Robert

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-3
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2019, 11:13:55 AM »
Thank you for the comments.  I appreciate the input





« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 11:24:49 AM by mccormicw »

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1285
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-71
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2019, 11:29:56 AM »
Bear with me.  I agree 100%.  This is not meant to be confrontational.  I thought the point of this forum was lively discussion. I just don't understand why there are a launch and crouch indicator listed in the book when the third indicator is leading with any body part (that one could lead with).  Seems like they could remove the first two and go with the third indicator which is leading with anything to the head and neck area.  Having said that, my point is that there is some reason to list the first two but they don't seem necessary.  I guess maybe they are indicators in the sense that when you see them, they catch your attention and lead you to the targeting call (if that makes sense).

Seems pretty lively to me!  :)

Yes, in the sense that you probably would not have a launch without leading with the head would make those somewhat redundant.  Similarly, with a 9-1-3 spearing foul, the indicator is rather built-in.  How could a player make attacking contact with the crown of his helmet if he doesn't lower and lead with his head?  So, independently requiring an indicator seems superfluous.

Some of the indicators may, indeed, be redundant.
 
And, as with most everything, there is a subjective judgment to be made with respect to the nature of the contact, i.e., forcible or not.  We have seen several initial targeting calls changed because the RO deemed the contact to not be forcible.  Now, there is where the truly spirited debates begin.

But not this one.  Pretty cut and dried targeting.

Robert

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 294
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-3
Re: Oklahoma - OSU targeting #3
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2019, 11:49:13 AM »
Thank you Elvis!  I tried to back out of conversation but you already had a hold of me.   LOL