Targeting Whiff (Video)

[TXMike]

In order to have a foul for targeting, does the violator actually have to hit the opponent?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiWHHmoOcnc

[mishatx]

The rules say "initiate contact", but I don't have a problem with flagging this if the targeted player dodges.

[JasonTX]

The rules say "initiate contact", but I don't have a problem with flagging this if the targeted player dodges.

If there is no contact then what foul are you calling it?  There has to be contact in order to have a personal foul.

[TXWhitehat]

The player launched (left his feet) and led with this helmet.  This call will be supported all day long by every supervisor.

[mishatx]

If there is no contact then what foul are you calling it?  There has to be contact in order to have a personal foul.

It's a safety situation. He launched in manner intended to do great harm, and doesn't deserve to get bailed out just because the target dodged.  I'm not 100% sure I'd toss the flag in the moment, seeing him miss, but I would defend any flag tossed on the play.

[RedTD]

It does look like he misses with his helmet but it appears to me his knee catches the receiver in the side. Not a lot of contact but contact non the less.

[110]

I may be polluting the waters with a Canadian interp, here, but the language we have states that there has to be contact. However, I think this is more than black-and-white. There's a clear *intent* to cause injury. The defender should not escape justice just because the intended target didn't move in predictable fashion.

[TXMike]

So for those of you who ar e flagging the "attempt" to foul, will you alslo flag an attempted chop, attempted clip, attempted running into/roughing the kicker, etc etc etc?

If they wanted the foul to include attempts why would it say "target AND initiate contact"?  The fighting foul clearly includes attempts even if not contact.  It is spelled out.  This could be spelled out also if it is what was intended.

[ret66482]

I think that the call was correct even with the slight contact (0:49).  It protects both the tackler and the receiver. 

'THE AQUISTION OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE CAN MAKE YOU A DANGEROUS PERSON'

[SJ2000]

The call was supported 100%. (1st hand knowledge) The NCAA wants to eliminate players leading with their helmet. Keep calling these and they will learn.

How many clipping fouls do you see now? When the NCAA made it a point of emphasis a long time ago it eventually solved it.

Start in the beginning of the rulebook, page FR-8

There's a good reason those officials were assigned the #3 and #4 teams in the nation on week 1

[TXMike]

Well this would be a great opportunity for the NCAA/CFO to make the point simply by putting this play in the next set of videos they release and by Dr Redding indicating this was the proper call.  I also think if that is what they want, it would be a very easy tweak to the rule to get it. 

Also, maybe you have more info, but it appeared only 1 of the 3 who would have had "eyes on" this , actually flagged.  I think that highlights the point which is there is not clarity on how this should be enforced.

[Chester]

This is not a whiff.   He contacts the receiver enough after he launches in the head and neck area.  Is it a knock out blow? No. But it's enough especially after he launched.  I think it was an excellent call. 

[TXMike]

He contacted the receiver with his helmet?

[SJ2000]

Mike, I would hope it ends up on the CFO training tape. It's a big time call, in a big time game and yes it was supported 100%.

Even thou the goal of the CFO is to get everyone on the same page there will always be some differences. I've been at the D1 level for 11 years. I have had an opportunity to work for 4 D1A supervisors. It's much better today than in the past and is getting better every year and each supervisor has there own points of emphasis.

A great example in the OK St player in the bowl game running along the goal line and then high 5 the fans. The crew was from CUSA. Their supervisor does not want those types of fouls called. I'm not sure if it has changed since, but I can tell you at kick off that's not a foul he wants to see on the game report.

[TXMike]

So will the F and S be downgraded for failing to make that same call (the targeting play)?

[SJ2000]

The answer is no. Never should you have 3 officials looking at the same exact spot. There maybe comments for the F OR S but I feel confident no downgrade.

[TXMike]

Once the pass is thrown, especially into the middle of the field, what are the S and F looking at if they are not looking to where ball is thrown?

[SJ2000]

You should go man-zone-ball. Very rarely will you have three officials get to the ball quick enough to make a judgement. Progressions take some time. Maybe when one receiver release's you could have three sets of eyes on the action while the ball is in the air. I have not seen only one receiver release in a long time.

Is there any other action the other officials could be looking at? Depending on the play I would think so. With your analogy could you have 6 officials looking at the action?

[TXMike]

I can't speak for the "lesser" officials, i.e. H, L, U and R but the 3 deep guys need to go eyes on ball once it is thrown.  And in this play the S did not even have anyone in his zone so I suspect he was already watching what was developing in the middle of the field.  He passed on the flag.   Would like to have been a fly on the wall at halftime to hear that discussion.   

Are there other fouls where this coordinator (and others perhaps) would give an attaboy for flagging an "attempted" foul?  (Not including attempted fighting here which IS a foul by definition)  And as an example, would you support the flag here for the actioon at the end of the play which was called "targeting" by the flagging official?   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssvL0O7th4

[Locker Room]

The comments by TXMike are right on.  Besides the coordinators using their own rules, some posters to this board are using their own rules.  So much for the CFO having everybody on the same page.

[bama_stripes]

And as an example, would you support the flag here for the action at the end of the play which was called "targeting" by the flagging official?   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssvL0O7th4

I would.

Curious as to why the offense declined the FM, though.

[TXMike]

Curious as to why the offense declined the FM, though.

Long story. Bottom line is both "fouls" were reported to R as live ball fouls even though his announcement said otherwise.  Only 1 could be enforced and it would have been the same regardless of which one was.  It was enforced correctly, you just have to ignore the R   ;-)

[zebra99]

He contacted the receiver with his helmet?

live, field level, I'm sure it looked like there was illegal contact to the calling official - it's only us in the catbird seats with our TV angle, slo-mo, etc., etc. who get excited because we now see little or no contact.

Yes, you have to have contact for this PF - that's fundamental - but would anyone stake their career that there was no contact if you were to have been there seeing it live?

So the hand was in the cookie jar, maybe it didn't come out with a cookie ....  but Mom still caught little Johnny in the act!

This should be supported all the way!

[TXMike]

Yes, you have to have contact for this PF - that's fundamental - but would anyone stake their career that there was no contact if you were to have been there seeing it live?

So the hand was in the cookie jar, maybe it didn't come out with a cookie ....  but Mom still caught little Johnny in the act!

  This is the fundamental principle I was trying to get addressed.  There MUST be contact for this to be a foul.  I really could care less about this specific play in this specific game with this specifc official .  I want to know if guys will flag this, EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW TEHRE WAS NO CONTACT.   If this guy THOUGHT there was contact and flagged, so be it.  But I cannot buy the apparent argument by some that an "attempted" targeting is a foul, contact or no.

As for Johnny and the cookie jar, what if his hand was in there because he saw Joey with it and knew he should not have so he took it waya and was putting it back in the jar.  Is momma still whooping him?

[Joe Stack]

There WAS contact -- maybe not very much, but it was there. I think you're reading too much into the rule, Mike. This isn't basketball where contact is required for a PF. The spirit and intent of the football rules is to eliminate this from the game and you don't let a player who did it off the hook because the offensive player ducked his head at the last minute.

There are many "dangerous" fouls that we don't require injury or actual danger to occur prior to throwing the flag. Same idea here.