For Those Who Do Not Think KCI and Targeting Can Be Called on the Same Act

[TXMike]

1st and 10 at the 50.  QB A8 passes from his 40 to the B-20 where the receiver is immediately tackled.  LB'r B33 launched and went helmet to helmet  on the passer on his (the defender's) 2d step following the release of the pass.   Is this roughing the passer or targeting?  Does it matter for penalty enforcement?

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'd call this a 9-1-9 PF-RTP with a 15 yard penalty from the end of the last run (B-20 in this case), with a possible ejection of B-33 if in the judgment of the calling official the action of B-33 would also qualify as "targeting" per rules 9-1-3 and 9-6.  Down and distance after the penalty enforcement is A 1st & 10, from the B-10.

I don't see any other enforcement here, but maybe I'm missing something?

[zebra99]

TxMike Wins!!   Roger's CFO video which just came out says it CAN be tacked on as targeting.   

[TXMike]

My 10% cut of all bets won by officials around the country can be donated to the charity of your choice.   

[Kalle]

I don't see any other enforcement here, but maybe I'm missing something?

What is the basic spot on pass plays?

Granted, TXMike didn't go out and say it, but I think he meant that the foul occurs during the pass play.

[TXMike]

Yep that was the intent.  To highlight potential different enforcement spots

[Atlanta Blue]

TxMike Wins!!   Roger's CFO video which just came out says it CAN be tacked on as targeting.   

For those of us without access to RR's video, did he say the Targeting foul could be tacked on INSTEAD of enforcing KCI, or in ADDITION to KCI?  In other words, can you enforce TWO fouls (I would think not), or that it would have been proper to add it on IN THIS CASE since the KCI was declined?

[TXMike]

he said one or the other (or implied it anyway)

[Welpe]

My 10% cut of all bets won by officials around the country can be donated to the charity of your choice.   

Remember the stoic few that stood with you on your rise to the top. 

[NVFOA_Ump]

he said one or the other (or implied it anyway)

So for those of us who don't have access to the videos, has Dr. Redding actually said that there is a clearly defined penalty PF-Targeting that is enforceable at the subsequent spot?  So in the KCI example we would actually have had 2 fouls, one for KCI and one for PF-Targeting and we could actually tack the PF Targeting 15 to the end of the return?

[TXMike]

Remember the stoic few that stood with you on your rise to the top. 

Oh yeah..NOW you are all gonna start saying that is the way you would have ruled too!!!   

I will say that the poll results from Rom Gilbert's poll ade me feel a lot better than the "love" I was gettng here.  Lots of folks apparentky thought the same but were not speaking up.   

[Welpe]

Oh yeah..NOW you are all gonna start saying that is the way you would have ruled too!!!   

Check the thread and you'll notice my posts along with yours...of course I realize as a Division 4 (almost 3!), my voice gets lost in the wilderness sometimes. 

[Diablo]

TxMike Wins!!   Roger's CFO video which just came out says it CAN be tacked on as targeting.   

Even a blind hog can find a nut if he sniffs around under the pecan tree long enough.

[TXMike]

Although I was compared to a condom yesterday and now a blind hog today, I prefer the clock comparison (we B's are all about timing after all)....even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Atlanta Blue]

OK, just to  :

Hasn't RR said that you can call KCI  OR targeting, but not both?  The single act may be interpreted as either foul, but you certainly can't award thirty yards for KCI AND targeting.

So I still maintain that the single act is not two fouls, but an act that violates two rules and can therefore be interpreted as EITHER foul, but not both.

Now, to Mike's point that it doesn't have to be be KCI INSTEAD of targeting, he was absolutely correct.

[TXMike]

He sort of said that.  The direct quote was (I think) "Here we have a very serious kick catch interference foul that is really a targeting foul".  He did not really address enforcing both b ut the rules as written would not permit that anyway.  2 live ball fouls so offended team ust choose the one they want.  Had the player who picked up the ball in the Ark game ran backwards 20 yards before being tackled, the targeting penalty would have not been as good as the KCI penalty so KCI would   have been accepted. 

[Welpe]

So I still maintain that the single act is not two fouls, but an act that violates two rules and can therefore be interpreted as EITHER foul, but not both.

What's wrong with treating them as two fouls? You'll only have one penalty, sure, but I'd say you still have two fouls.

[zebra99]

As long as we agree that the offended team has two enforcement options, the rest is purely semantics.

[chymechowder]

I know that a basic tenet of penalty enforcment is "whatever's better for the offended team."  as it should be.   for the original KCI play in question, I agree that what the Team A player did can count as targeting. but I still have a nagging feeling that calling it targeting here perhaps goes a little beyond officiating into the realm of advocacy.  as in: wow that was a vicious hit. and under our normal enforcment,  you're not getting any yardage penalty. so let's see what we can do for you.

let's say the team A player didn't use his helmet. and instead he delivered a horrible, violent shoulder blow. (and team B picked it up as they did and advanced 20 yards).  would we still seek to give them penalty yards?  with targeting out, would we say: KCI. but also a flagrant PF.  player ejected. and we'll tack on 15 to the dead ball spot for the PF?

[El Macman]

RR may need to take the interpretation one step farther. If A legally recovers the kick, then calling it targeting would seem to require that we enforce at the previous spot, repeat the down. Calling it KCI would allow B to get the ball, but, technically, it lets the offender off the hook for the "automatic review" required by rule. I believe we need a rule change to make a targeting/defenseless player action that is also KCI either a spot foul or enforced at the spot where the dead ball belongs to B, whichever is more advantageous to B. Officially, it would be a targeting/defenseless player foul, which would trigger the automatic review.

[Welpe]

but I still have a nagging feeling that calling it targeting here perhaps goes a little beyond officiating into the realm of advocacy.  as in: wow that was a vicious hit. and under our normal enforcment,  you're not getting any yardage penalty. so let's see what we can do for you.

What would you call if the same Team A player lays a vicious helmet to helmet hit on one of the Team B blockers while the kick is in the air instead of the Team B player in position to make the catch?  Targeting right?

Why should team B be placed at a disadvantage because the foul was against a player that was in an even more vunerable position than the player in my example?

[chymechowder]

hear what you're saying welpe, and I agree with you.  just saying that the kci enforcement rule, as written, seems to have a loophole for this kind of play. and calling it targeting KINDA seems like the officials looking for a way around the loophole. mind you, i'm not saying this is necessarily wrong. just saying I have a slightly funny feeling about it.

back to my question: if it was a vicious shoulder hit on the return man, would you support calling it a live ball PF and tacking on?  or would you go with regular KCI and no extra yards for B?

[Welpe]

You raise a good point in that regard and I think perhaps it would be usually regarded as just KCI.  As Macman alluded to, we probably need some clarification on these types of plays that could be both a PF and KCI by rule.  Rogers has given us some but a more concrete ruling would be helpful.

[NVFOA_Ump]

As I said in an earlier post, it would be very helpful if there was some clear rules language that stated that the KCI and the PF-Targeting were two distinct enforceable fouls with the option being to take the enforcement that provided the best result.  I don't disagree that with the emphasis on targeting, defenseless players, etc. that this should be the case, but currently that language simply is not in the book.

[TXMike]

RR may need to take the interpretation one step farther. If A legally recovers the kick, then calling it targeting would seem to require that we enforce at the previous spot, repeat the down. Calling it KCI would allow B to get the ball, but, technically, it lets the offender off the hook for the "automatic review" required by rule. I believe we need a rule change to make a targeting/defenseless player action that is also KCI either a spot foul or enforced at the spot where the dead ball belongs to B, whichever is more advantageous to B. Officially, it would be a targeting/defenseless player foul, which would trigger the automatic review.

If the hit is that violent, I don't see the worry about automatic review, it is gonna be reviewed, especially after the crew highlights it in the game report.