Officiating Targeting in TASO/UIL Fooball

[ElvisLives]

I have coordinated this information with other members of the TASO Football Education Committee, who fully concur.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Officiating Targeting in UIL football is now a 2-step process: 1) Determine if the action is Targeting by pure NCAA rule, 2) decide if it is “flagrant” or “non-flagrant.” Yes, there is now an additional judgment to be made regarding the actual Targeting action. If we determine the action to be a foul for Targeting under NCAA 9-1-3 or 9-1-4, then we have already observed and determined that an indicator was present, and there was forcible physical contact. However, we are now to look at the action in its whole, and decide if, in spite of the Targeting elements, the action was part of a legitimate football act, as in the following example:

A88 is attempting to touch a pass when B99 leaps from behind A88 and reaches with his left arm over A88’s left shoulder, attempting to deflect the ball away. At the same time, B99 thrusts his right forearm toward A88, in an attempt to contact A88 in the nameplate area of A88’s back. However, B99 misjudges his ‘aim’ on A88 and contacts A88 in the neck/lower part of A88’s helmet. (Note that whether B99 is successful, or not, in his attempt to deflect the ball, or, that whether, or not, A88 is successful in making the catch, neither are relevant to whether or not B99 has committed a Targting foul.) The B and the L both throw flags for Targeting. The B and L confer, and the B reports that he saw B99 lead with his right arm/shoulder and forcibly contact A88 in the neck/lower head area. The L reports that he also saw the contact to the neck/lower head area, but that B99 was also making a bona fide attempt to deflect the ball. Both officials concur that a (9-1-4) Targeting foul has occurred, but consider this to be a non-flagrant Targeting foul, because B99 was making a legitimate football action, with his attempt to deflect the ball, and the forcible contact, although deliberate, was incidental to making this legitimate football act, and was not solely intended to punish the opponent.

There can certainly be other examples of non-flagrant Targeting, but this example clearly depicts a plausible situation that TASO/UIL would want to be ruled as non-flagrant Targeting.

Had B99 made no effort to deflect the ball, then his action would not be considered a legitimate football act, and would be “flagrant” targeting, resulting in B99’s disqualification from further participation in the game.

[dammitbobby]

While that's an example of a theoretical 'non-flagrant' targeting, it's just that, an example... it's not a clear directive or interpretation with rules support to determine what is, and is not, flagrant/not flagrant.

They want to align closer to the rulebook definitions of targeting - cool. They're going to be doing a LOT of reviews and probable overturning ejections then, because I imagine the vast majority of officials would agree with Jason and saying targeting = flagrant = DQ, end of discussion, as the rule doesn't allow for intent to be judged as a mitigating factor, since it's a safety foul.

'was not solely intended to punish the opponent' - is that the TASO/UIL standard? If so, why wasn't that codified in the rule?  Let's say in the example given, the receiver was seriously injured and carried off on a body board - does TASO/UIL still want that to be non-flagrant? Because I'm not going to be the one explaining to the coach why yes, it was targeting, but he didn't mean to do it, so he's not DQ'd.

[Whodatboy18]

Thanks Elvis for the explanation.

I still don't like the change, the old standard of how confident the crew was in the call was sufficient.

The rulebook definition of targeting clearly states “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

The very definition to have a targeting foul requires an attacking of the opponent which is flagrant in nature regardless of whatever else they are or are claiming to be doing.

For example, a safety coming over on a deep pass and taking out the receiver in an attempt to break up the pass is a legitimate football act. However, I would expect everyone to immediately qualify that as a flagrant foul if he "misjudges" and the contact is to the head or neck area due to the physical contact being so severe.

Now we are adding a need for us to judge the player's intent. It isn't possible to be consistent or accurate with this. It really sounds like they are trying to differentiate flagrant and non-flagrant as between forcible contact and really forcible contact.

[ElvisLives]

This is not codified in rule. It is an “interpretation” by TASO based on UIL comments regarding Targeting and disqualifications.
I’ve done what I can to better understand the interpretation, and let you know what they are trying to accomplish. I didn’t invent this, and neither did I vote for this (and I honestly don’t know who did, if anybody). All of you have elected District Directors who DO have the power of the vote. Your next step should be to seek clarification or change through them, if that is desired.

I will be outside straightening things up in the garage…

[AlUpstateNY]

This is not codified in rule. It is an “interpretation” by TASO based on UIL comments regarding Targeting and disqualifications.
I’ve done what I can to better understand the interpretation, and let you know what they are trying to accomplish. I didn’t invent this, and neither did I vote for this (and I honestly don’t know who did, if anybody). All of you have elected District Directors who DO have the power of the vote. Your next step should be to seek clarification or change through them, if that is desired.

I will be outside straightening things up in the garage…

I sincerely appreciate Elvis's effort to try and explain a potentially hyper possibility in an established & legitimate player safety protection.  The stated TASO definition of "Targeting" seems to reasonably establish, an appropriate attempt to prevent, the serious risk of specific behaviors, leaving the burden of such behavior squarely with the perpetrator. This added "interpretation" seems similar to suggesting excusing an assassin when the attempt was, unfortunately, off-target.

[dammitbobby]

I'll second that, in being extremely appreciative of the work Elvis has done to get clarification. I do believe he recognizes the problem, but also that it's not something he can fix or explain in the way he is so good at, because IMO the TASO interpretation is in direct conflict with safety rules, personal foul rules, and officiating standards.

[ElvisLives]

Just recognize that the problem was created by coaches, in refusing to accept responsibility for teaching players to play safely. They don’t mind playing on the edge / outside the rules, but don’t want to lose their better players when they step over the line between hard play and simply dangerous play. Because we don’t have replay for games other than the State Championships, the UIL wanted the non-flagrant thing, several years ago, and here we are today, still trying to define it. I don’t know the answer, short of getting NCAA level replay in all UIL games, so we can scrap the non-flagrant thing.

There will be a webinar on Targeting on August 13. I urge EVERYONE to participate.

[JasonTX]

Thanks for the information.  In my mind, your play example would lead me to believe that B99 was not "attacking", thus it wouldn't be a foul at all.  Not all hits to the head or neck area are illegal, if they don't have an indicator.  Copied from the Targeting Note: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a
legal block or playing the ball.  So, in your play, if we judge him to not be attacking, but instead playing the ball, I simply don't think I would have a foul at all. 

In my opinion, the UIL simply wants to have a rule to be politically correct so that don't have to come out and say, "If you don't have the courage to DQ a player out of fear of getting scratched, we'll let you have a way out by calling it 'non-flagrant', so you can still flag it and keep the kid in if desired".   I remember the first year NCAA had this rule, we didn't see too many flags from high school officials, but we had plenty of video to show it was taking place in our games, and that is when the UIL added the non-flagrant rule to encourage us to throw the flag.

[ElvisLives]

Jason,
In my example, I had B99 thrusting his right arm toward A88, in an effort to make contact. I had intended for that to be seen as the “attacking” action, while he was simultaneously reaching to deflect the pass with his left arm, which would be the bona fide football act. The contact by the arm was to be seen as ‘forcible,’ but not necessarily “flagrant,” as defined (i.e., placing the opponent at risk of catastrophic injury). (If the forcible contact is before the pass is touched, then that would likely be DPI, in addition to Targeting, for what that’s worth.)

Yes, TASO/UIL are asking us to make a judgment as to the ‘severity’ of the contact. If the contact doesn’t rise to the level of flagrant on its own (as in a 'striking' foul), but all of the elements of targeting are present, along with a bona fide football act, then we can/should rule non-flagrant targeting. They get penalized, but, unlike NCAA, he gets one pass toward DQ. Do it again, and he’s done for the night.
If there is no bona fide football act, then there is no ‘pass,’ and, if the contact is forcible, that’s a flagrant targeting foul, with DQ.

Of course, as we move along, EVERYTHING will be claimed to be a football act.

[dammitbobby]

...all of the elements of targeting are present, along with a bona fide football act, then we can/should rule non-flagrant targeting.

This is where I am getting hung up - the rule book explicitly states: 'Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.'

I cannot square that with the expectation that I am to judge whether there was a football play attached or not - we're talking about changing the very definition of targeting here, IMO, and making it some nebulous concept.

(Not speaking directly to you, Elvis, since you taught me this, but) Words matter. Definitions matter. I believe the interpretation is not in alignment with 9-1-3/4 rules language, rule 2 definitions, or officiating standards.

I can very much see this devolving into targeting call -> DQ -> let TASO/UIL decide if it really was 'flagrant" and if he has to sit out the following week. Honestly, I'm ok with that - maybe they will realize that they have made a poor situation to begin with (using rule terminology (flagrant/nonflagrant) in a way not aligned with the rule book definitions) much worse.

Like I said - I'm not going to have to explain to a coach why their kid hot injured, 'but it was a football move,' so he's not DQ'd.

Maybe I'm completely wrong and overthinking this. If so, I'm going to need a lot more explanation/someone's going to have to dumb it down for me.

[ElvisLives]

This is where I am getting hung up - the rule book explicitly states: 'Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.'

I cannot square that with the expectation that I am to judge whether there was a football play attached or not - we're talking about changing the very definition of targeting here, IMO, and making it some nebulous concept.

(Not speaking directly to you, Elvis, since you taught me this, but) Words matter. Definitions matter. I believe the interpretation is not in alignment with 9-1-3/4 rules language, rule 2 definitions, or officiating standards.

I can very much see this devolving into targeting call -> DQ -> let TASO/UIL decide if it really was 'flagrant" and if he has to sit out the following week. Honestly, I'm ok with that - maybe they will realize that they have made a poor situation to begin with (using rule terminology (flagrant/nonflagrant) in a way not aligned with the rule book definitions) much worse.

Like I said - I'm not going to have to explain to a coach why their kid hot injured, 'but it was a football move,' so he's not DQ'd.

Maybe I'm completely wrong and overthinking this. If so, I'm going to need a lot more explanation/someone's going to have to dumb it down for me.

Yes, the UIL’s targeting exception is in conflict with the NCAA’s rules. The same can be said of ALL of their exceptions. That’s why the make exceptions, because they want something different than NCAA.
The UIL replacement penalty statement for 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 is the heart of this matter. The UIL added the element of requiring the foul to be flagrant for DQ. Ever since, I have argued there was no such thing as Flagrant Targeting. Targeting is, in itself, flagrant. But, the UIL and TASO have re-interpreted the UIL’s exception, requiring the contact to rise to the level of “flagrant,” as defined by the NCAA, to require DQ. They have further interpreted that forcible contact that doesn’t rise to the level of “flagrant” is to be deemed as non-flagrant targeting, with the distance penalty and first down, but NO DQ on the first incidence. If the forcible contact is in conjunction with a bona fide football act, that fact is to be taken into consideration when deciding flagrant or non-flagrant. As in my example, the contact was forcible, but part of an effort to make a bona fide football act. The contact wasn’t a striking action - just a ‘blocking’ act that went awry. It is targeting. But, by UIL standards, it is non-flagrant.
The same example could be changed slightly to make the contact a striking action to the head (in addition to the attempt to deflect the pass), which we should judge as flagrant, and DQ.
Yes, it is now more complicated.

[JasonTX]

Here's a question I would ask.  Would a UIL non-flagrant targeting result in a DQ under straight NCAA rules or would NCAA pass on it being a foul?

[ElvisLives]

Here's a question I would ask.  Would a UIL non-flagrant targeting result in a DQ under straight NCAA rules or would NCAA pass on it being a foul?

That’s the difference. ANY targeting = DQ in NCAA. The only judgment regarding the severity of contact is whether it is “forcible” or not. That’s a fairly low standard.
UIL coaches have chosen to allow the first occurrence (per player) of low-level, but forcible contact, to be classified as “non-flagrant targeting,” so they don’t lose their better players, in pursuit of the almighty victory. Forcible contact that doesn’t put the opponent at risk of catastrophic injury - the judgment we have to make - is to be considered non-flagrant, and each player is allowed one such incident with only the distance penalty.
Contact, such as a striking or kicking foul, would be flagrant, whether targeting or not. They sit down on the first occurrence of any of those kinds of foul, including when associated with targeting. For my money, I don’t see how a 9-1-3 - especially to the head-neck area (whether defenseless or not) would NOT be flagrant, even if in concert with some other ‘football act.’

No question, each of us will probably have different opinions about whether any specific contact puts a player at risk of catastrophic injury. And that is where the UIL is losing consistency in enforcement of their exception to the NCAA rule.

Headin’ to Belton for a workshop tomorrow. Over and out.

[dammitbobby]

That’s the difference. ANY targeting = DQ in NCAA. The only judgment regarding the severity of contact is whether it is “forcible” or not. That’s a fairly low standard.
UIL coaches have chosen to allow the first occurrence (per player) of low-level, but forcible contact, to be classified as “non-flagrant targeting,” so they don’t lose their better players, in pursuit of the almighty victory. Forcible contact that doesn’t put the opponent at risk of catastrophic injury - the judgment we have to make - is to be considered non-flagrant, and each player is allowed one such incident with only the distance penalty.
Contact, such as a striking or kicking foul, would be flagrant, whether targeting or not. They sit down on the first occurrence of any of those kinds of foul, including when associated with targeting. For my money, I don’t see how a 9-1-3 - especially to the head-neck area (whether defenseless or not) would NOT be flagrant, even if in concert with some other ‘football act.’

No question, each of us will probably have different opinions about whether any specific contact puts a player at risk of catastrophic injury. And that is where the UIL is losing consistency in enforcement of their exception to the NCAA rule.

Headin’ to Belton for a workshop tomorrow. Over and out.

So as this drifts towards whether or not injury is/is not probable, it's going to turn into 'Was the player injured?' If so, flagrant, if not, non-flagrant... and coaches will simply instruct their teams to go down and stay down under the guise of 'safety' so they can check them out, which conveniently turns the targeting call into a flagrant one.

[AlUpstateNY]

I'm trying hard to see the value in this UIL revision. It seems that certain specific acts that are deemed "flagrant" garnering a penalty of disqualification, only if they produce actual injury, whereas similar actions that fail to provide actual injury are afforded lesser penalty.  I thought that assigning such serious consequences for certain, specific behaviors, was also intended to dissuade players from even considering these specific acts/behaviors, regardless of their intended success/failure?  It would seem that reducing the consistency of punishment of such behavior, based on conclusion would only serve to encourage "perfecting" their attempt, which seems somewhat counterproductive, to maintaining "player safety".

[blindtxzebra]

I'm trying hard to see the value in this UIL revision. It seems that certain specific acts that are deemed "flagrant" garnering a penalty of disqualification, only if they produce actual injury, whereas similar actions that fail to provide actual injury are afforded lesser penalty.  I thought that assigning such serious consequences for certain, specific behaviors, was also intended to dissuade players from even considering these specific acts/behaviors, regardless of their intended success/failure?  It would seem that reducing the consistency of punishment of such behavior, based on conclusion would only serve to encourage "perfecting" their attempt, which seems somewhat counterproductive, to maintaining "player safety".

There is no value in this. It is either targeting or it is not targeting, end of story. When the UIL tries to create/recreate a rule it ends up convoluted and useless. Case in point the rule they put in 2 years ago in regards to rushing on a try or FG.