Not a replay expert

[ElvisLives]

OK, even though I worked with replay in the earlier years, I was never what I would consider an expert, particularly with what could be and couldn't be reviewed, which has changed enormously in the past 11 years. So, even less of an expert now. How about this?

FBS group of 5 broadcast TV game. Down/Distance/Location irrelevant. QB A11 can't find an open receiver, and advances several yards downfield. As he approaches some defenders, he goes into a feet-first slide. As he is on the ground and sliding -absolutely defenseless, at this point - two defenders fly over him. It is arguable and debatable from the stands (where I was) if they actually made contact with him. But, at least one of them may have, because after a group discussion, the referee announced "Personal Foul - Targeting. The Targeting is under further review." After a short review, the Referee announced, "After review, there was no Targeting," and then announced the next down/distance, which was the natural result of the down. So, that tells me that there must not have been any contact, at all. Or, certainly nothing that would have even been ruled as a dead-ball late hit. Right?
All I could see was the video screen in the stadium, from a bad angle, and I couldn't tell what happened, at all.

But, somebody on the crew must have believed they saw contact that would have been at least a late hit - right? And then, they must have decided that the contact was to the head-neck area. So the crew probably decided to use an abundance of caution and ruled 9-1-4 Targeting, and let replay take a look at it (which, I'm sure they were already doing).
But, since A11 was now defenseless, there would have had to be some triggering foul, to begin with (because 9-1-4 Targeting, as a sole foul, only applies to players other than defenseless players). So, if there was a triggering foul, like a late hit, then they should have enforced the penalty for that foul, even if they removed the Targeting element. Had A11 been upright and running, or falling/diving forward, and got hit above the shoulders, no foul (not defenseless). But he was definitely, and clearly, into a slide.

And, obviously, neither the crew, nor Replay saw a 9-1-3 'spearing' Targeting, because that doesn't matter if defenseless or not.

Shouldn't the RO have inquired if there was a triggering foul, to begin with? I guess I'm just wondering how there was no penalty, at all. Am I missing something?


 

[Grant - AR]

If the R announced "Personal Foul,Targeting" then the only foul they had was targeting.  If there was another foul, he should have announced something like, "Personal Foul, late hit, with targeting."  Then, if IR takes the targeting off, there is still a late hit that will be enforced. 

[Legacy Zebra]

I know the play you’re talking about. I was surprised that the original announcement was simply “targeting” and not “unnecessary roughness with targeting”. Based on where the flag came from (as well as where it didn’t come from) I believe that the crew ruled that it was a late slide and therefore not UNR. I believe replay was looking at a possible 9-1-3 targeting and overturned that. Replay cannot add a late hit. So once the crew on the field went with targeting by itself, that’s all replay could look at.

[ElvisLives]

I know the play you’re talking about. I was surprised that the original announcement was simply “targeting” and not “unnecessary roughness with targeting”. Based on where the flag came from (as well as where it didn’t come from) I believe that the crew ruled that it was a late slide and therefore not UNR. I believe replay was looking at a possible 9-1-3 targeting and overturned that. Replay cannot add a late hit. So once the crew on the field went with targeting by itself, that’s all replay could look at.

The thought of a late slide did cross my mind, but even in live action, I didn't see it being late. But, maybe that can be supported.
I guess I was just trying to make sure I understood that if, technically, they ruled a dead-ball foul (late hit, striking, or some other personal foul), then, yes, they could rule 9-1-4 Targeting, additionally, since he was defenseless. But, if it was a late slide, and he is still just a routine ball carrier, 9-1-4 doesn't apply. As you say, that must be what they decided. If so, then all good.

[dammitbobby]

I watched this as well, and was a bit perplexed by it.  Since it was under 2 minutes (actually I think it was under 1) they also had a 10-second runoff. I think it would be more equitable if rule allowed for Team A to decline the runoff, since it's not their fault the play was reviewed for a potential foul. As it was, they didn't get the foul that was thrown, and also lost 10 seconds off the clock, through no fault of their own.

I know that's the rule, it just doesn't seem equitable in this case. Between 1 and 2 minutes left, sure, do a runoff. But under one, give them the option. If I remember correctly, it effectively cost them a down, as they had to kick a FG (missed it) on 3rd down.

[Legacy Zebra]

I disagree that it cost them a down. The point of the runoff is that it approximates where the clock would have been had the game not been erroneously stopped. Effectively, 10 seconds ran from the time the ball was dead until they were allowed to snap it again. That is about what it would have taken for the ball to be spotted, the offense line up, and snap the ball. In fact, without the runoff, the defense would have been put at a disadvantage. The offense would have gotten a free timeout to get a play called and line up with almost no time coming off the clock.

[dammitbobby]

If I remember correctly, there was confusion, and I thought the C and U, maybe just one or the other, just stood there, until the flag come in from off camera (guessing from the R).

I just remember it struck me as odd and very inefficient.

[ElvisLives]

I am now pretty certain the ruling on the field (ROTF) was a dead-ball Targeting (the BC was sliding), but no other foul. I believe the RO ruled no forcible contact, so no Targeting. With no other foul, no penalty to enforce. And, since the RO corrected the ROTF to no Targeting, so no foul at all, there was a 10-second subtraction, since the clock would have continued to run otherwise.

Who said this was easy?🤔

[Morningrise]

And, since the RO corrected the ROTF to no Targeting, so no foul at all, there was a 10-second subtraction, since the clock would have continued to run otherwise.

Who said this was easy?🤔

It gets even trickier than that. Since replay removed the dead-ball targeting, there was a replay runoff that neither team can decline but either team can avoid with a timeout. If replay had confirmed the dead-ball targeting, there would have been a foul runoff that Team A can decline or Team B can avoid with a timeout.

[bossman72]

The replay rule doesn't make sense to me.
If the on-field officials pick up the flag, no runoff.
If replay picks up the flag, runoff.
How does that make sense?

[ilyazhito]

I agree.