RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: JDM on December 03, 2015, 01:54:59 PM
-
UIL rules Katy can play after using an eligible player in a playoff game:
http://www.chron.com/sports/highschool/article/Live-coverage-of-the-Katy-football-program-s-UIL-6672744.php
-
Sounds like they did the right things in order to mitigate their punishment.
-
Plus the UIL would not want to lose the 15% of that gate. LOL :sTiR:
-
Speaking of the 15%, anyone know just how much the UIL brings in each year from football playoffs?
-
Anyone watching? Pretty sure we just had targeting at 3:18 in the 2nd.
-
Speaking of the 15%, anyone know just how much the UIL brings in each year from football playoffs?
It is in the seven figures. This is the main revenue source for the UIL
-
Anyone watching? Pretty sure we just had targeting at 3:18 in the 2nd.
If that was targeting then it is time for me to hang 'em up cause I would never be able to call that.
The play
https://youtu.be/yMNF8hbzL8A
-
Anyone watching? Pretty sure we just had targeting at 3:18 in the 2nd.
No way.............
-
I don't see any targeting aspect in this, so I would like this not to be called.
-
Playing devil's advocate; was the receiver defenceless and was there forcible contact to the head and neck area?
-
Playing devil's advocate; was the receiver defenceless and was there forcible contact to the head and neck area?
Yes and yes, but the defender was making a play for the ball.
No TGT
-
No question a play for the ball, but definite forcible contact. College games this year have called it for much less and then upheld.
The rule is terrible to officiate but how do you really change it? A UIL exception to remove the DQ would be a start since we can't review.
-
No question a play for the ball, but definite forcible contact. College games this year have called it for much less and then upheld.
The rule is terrible to officiate but how do you really change it? A UIL exception to remove the DQ would be a start since we can't review.
I have written the UIL Committee every year since the mandatory DQ came in requesting an exception. Until some key games are affected by DQs that turned out to be in error they are not going to change IMHO
-
No question a play for the ball, but definite forcible contact. College games this year have called it for much less and then upheld.
Soooo you think this TGT???? I hope not
-
Playing devil's advocate; was the receiver defenceless and was there forcible contact to the head and neck area?
Yes and yes, but the defender was making a play for the ball.
No TGT
I have written the UIL Committee every year since the mandatory DQ came in requesting an exception. Until some key games are affected by DQs that turned out to be in error they are not going to change IMHO
Agree. Criteria for TGT is there...but was there intent? He is making a play for the ball and the contact to the head of the defenseless receiver with the defenders left shoulder is incidental. No foul here. But I am more inclined to wonder why we are trying to get a UIL exception to the rule. What are we excepting? The entire rule or just the DQ? The rule is written fairly well in my opinion. He deserves to be ejected for a hit that is TGT. We are not ejecting the player...he DQed himself. There is no place in the game for these types of hits and high school ball is a great place to enforce this rule to teach the player to lower his strike zone and tackle appropriately for the next level.
-
Where does it say in the rule that there has to be intent? I think there needs to be judgement in these but within defined criteria.
-
Agree. Criteria for TGT is there...but was there intent? He is making a play for the ball and the contact to the head of the defenseless receiver with the defenders left shoulder is incidental. No foul here. But I am more inclined to wonder why we are trying to get a UIL exception to the rule. What are we excepting? The entire rule or just the DQ? The rule is written fairly well in my opinion. He deserves to be ejected for a hit that is TGT. We are not ejecting the player...he DQed himself. There is no place in the game for these types of hits and high school ball is a great place to enforce this rule to teach the player to lower his strike zone and tackle appropriately for the next level.
All I want excepted out is the MANDATORY DQ. I would still see we have the ability to DQ, as we do now, for a FLGRANT targeting. But an accidental targeting?!!!? If you have not seen accidental targeting then you are not working enough.
-
In my view, under the current guidelines, this is a clear foul. NFHS fortunately does not have a mandatory DQ attached to the foul which, perhaps, makes it easier to call these up here in NY. Regardless, the defender dives and clocks the receiver in the helmet. ^flag
It's still not intuitive, but all of the guidance we've seen says that is how it is to be called.
-
Accidental targeting???? I gotta get out more #youngster
-
Accidental targeting???? I gotta get out more #youngster
I gotta agree. I have yet to see accidental target in the 3+ years (I think) the rule has been around. If you have a clip of accidental targeting you can share, I would love to see what you mean. But in a game without replay, there will be no accidental targeting. Either he did or he didn't...no maybe because when in question, it is not targeting. Not saying it can't be a personal foul, but in question it will not be targeting.
-
The play being discussed here would be an "accidental targeting" if one exists. Does anyone think the defender was not legitimately trying to get to the ball? There is no way he could dive down that low to try to make a play on the ball and not have his helmet in such a position that it might strike the receiver's helmet. The guys who are calling this targeting would have to agree this is an accidental targeting. There is no way this merits a DQ, even if it MIGHT result in a 15 yard penalty.
I do not happen to believe there can be targeting without intent. I believe the rule says the offender must "target an opponent" that seems pretty clear to me.
-
when TGT is involved, when in question it is a foul.
-
You need to pass on this one. No foul.
-
The play being discussed here would be an "accidental targeting" if one exists. Does anyone think the defender was not legitimately trying to get to the ball? There is no way he could dive down that low to try to make a play on the ball and not have his helmet in such a position that it might strike the receiver's helmet. The guys who are calling this targeting would have to agree this is an accidental targeting. There is no way this merits a DQ, even if it MIGHT result in a 15 yard penalty.
I do not happen to believe there can be targeting without intent. I believe the rule says the offender must "target an opponent" that seems pretty clear to me.
Which I would agree with you. Had TGT been called here, it could be "accidental TGT" but that would also be the incorrect call...would it not? So if this hit was called targeting and you agree it would be the incorrect call, then we don't have accidental targeting because we don't have TGT at all.
when TGT is involved, when in question it is a foul.
Agree with you as well. It says it right there in the rule, but I feel this aids the calling official when he has replay because replay can remove the target if they deem necessary. However, when you don't have replay I feel the "when in question" is a different story. Harp on me all you want, but if I have any doubt that a player targeted, I would be reluctant to call it. If I am not 100% confident he targeted, I wouldn't throw.
-
However, when you don't have replay I feel the "when in question" is a different story. Harp on me all you want, but if I have any doubt that a player targeted, I would be reluctant to call it. If I am not 100% confident he targeted, I wouldn't throw.
At the high school level, you're pretty sure he targeted but not 100% confident so you don't throw and the player is laying there unconscious. Do you still feel that philosophy is correct? I think at that level more than any other, everyone would be ok with you to error on the side of safety.
-
At the high school level, you're pretty sure he targeted but not 100% confident so you don't throw and the player is laying there unconscious. Do you still feel that philosophy is correct? I think at that level more than any other, everyone would be ok with you to error on the side of safety.
That might lead to some guys doing this....you see the big hit that might be targeting so you drop the hanky. As you are going to the R to report you note what is happening with the player who was hit. He is laying there obviously in distress so you report targeting. He jumps up with no obvious ill effects right after play is over and you report to the R that "after further review" there was no foul for targeting. I am not suggesting this as a road to follow, just throwing it out there that some folks might get to thinking that way if we get overly concerned about no flag for an injured player.
-
That might lead to some guys doing this....you see the big hit that might be targeting so you drop the hanky. As you are going to the R to report you note what is happening with the player who was hit. He is laying there obviously in distress so you report targeting. He jumps up with no obvious ill effects right after play is over and you report to the R that "after further review" there was no foul for targeting. I am not suggesting this as a road to follow, just throwing it out there that some folks might get to thinking that way if we get overly concerned about no flag for an injured player.
Point taken, obviously not what I was suggesting.
-
Bud has a great line,..."how would a flag have prevented that injury "
-
Bud has a great line,..."how would a flag have prevented that injury "
But it might help prevent it from happening next time. Whereas no flag leads the player to think what he did was legal.
-
But it might help prevent it from happening next time. Whereas no flag leads the player to think what he did was legal.
+1
-
But it might help prevent it from happening next time. Whereas no flag leads the player to think what he did was legal.
Possibly. But if you had doubt then what the player did must have been legal to a degree. I for one am not throwing on something that is a "maybe" foul to prevent something that would be a foul in the future. Like Mike said earlier, my flag is not going to prevent the injury and if I am not sure I have targeting which is a foul that has the repercussions of an ejection, I'm going to be absolutely sure he targeted.
-
Something that is getting lost in this discussion is this foul has one of the most severe penalties possible. Yes the rules say when in question it is a foul but the rules also provide a process for reviewing the cal and getting it right hopefully. We do not have the benefit of that process being available to us so I would use caution hanging my hat on the "when in question" aspect
-
I don't work a whole lot of varsity football but I would think we would have the opposite mind set of "when in doubt" it is not a foul, since we don't have replay to confirm. I am not a fan of kicking a kid out of the game if I am not for sure he earned it. Additionally the high school game is somewhat slower than what we so on TV so I think being "sure" should be something we should be able to handle most of the time.
-
Not TGT...
'Target' is not defined in the rule book because it shouldn't need to be, the defender here is simply going for the ball.. The contact is incidental.
target - a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
The receiver is not being attacked here, he is in the way.
Think of it this way, would the defenders actions have been any different if the WR wasn't there.
-
Not TGT...
'Target' is not defined in the rule book because it shouldn't need to be, the defender here is simply going for the ball.. The contact is incidental.
target - a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
The receiver is not being attacked here, he is in the way.
Think of it this way, would the defenders actions have been any different if the WR wasn't there.
Well put. tiphat:
-
I don't work a whole lot of varsity football but I would think we would have the opposite mind set of "when in doubt" it is not a foul, since we don't have replay to confirm. I am not a fan of kicking a kid out of the game if I am not for sure he earned it. Additionally the high school game is somewhat slower than what we so on TV so I think being "sure" should be something we should be able to handle most of the time.
In the sense there is no replay, yes they need to be sure he did in fact target more so then in the games with replay. Like you said, since the HS game is slower than the higher levels, this should be easy to do. I'm speaking from a safety aspect and dealing with children, that if there were ever a time to error on the side of safety this would be the level. This play is not TGT, I'm talking the general philosophy on TGT. I could be wrong, this is just my opinion. But I'm usually right.
-
You're the expert bud hEaDbAnG
-
You're the expert bud hEaDbAnG
Your head hurtin after all that knowledge I just dropped on ya? #learningisfun #knowledgebomb #yourewelcome
-
But it might help prevent it from happening next time.
If that were true, there would be no game with 20+ fouls and no basketball games with 40+ fouls.
Even if, in football, if they were different types of fouls, at what point does the team realize, "hey, this crew WILL flag what they think are illegal actions..."
-
If that were true, there would be no game with 20+ fouls and no basketball games with 40+ fouls.
Even if, in football, if they were different types of fouls, at what point does the team realize, "hey, this crew WILL flag what they think are illegal actions..."
This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read. If the fear of being ejected(HS and NCAA) or suspended and fined(NFL) hasn't changed the way the game is played then why have these types of hits/fouls been reduced so much over just the last couple years?
-
My "going for the ball" comment was just confirmed on TNF by Mike Carey.
All doubters, I hope you have learned your lesson. Never doubt HoustonRef.
-
Not that I think the original play here was targeting but you wanna bet a cold one in Abilene in July on whether or not I can find a clip of RR saying good call on a targeting called on a player going for the ball? >:D
-
Not that I think the original play here was targeting but you wanna bet a cold one in Abilene in July on whether or not I can find a clip of RR saying good call on a targeting called on a player going for the ball? >:D
Abilene in July sounds miserable. Never doubt HoustonRef but also never doubt TxMike ability to get clips...of anything.
Also HR > RR