Author Topic: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)  (Read 12695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« on: November 15, 2011, 10:09:38 AM »
I can't believe I am saying this but perhaps it is time to get IR involved on these big hit plays? 
The players are clearly moving at speeds which often make it impossible for the human eye to catch the tiny points that make something a foul, or not. 
If we are gonna have the technology, might as well use it when possible.

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

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1860
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2011, 10:17:20 AM »
I'm going to take what will no doubt be an unpopular stance but I think this is a foul.  The shoulder is involved but I see the majority of the force being applied with the helmet.

Just my two cents. Flame retardant suit is on.

Offline Etref

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 2415
  • FAN REACTION: +88/-29
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2011, 10:20:00 AM »
I think the hit is legit and Mike has a point. Also if IR had been involved maybe they would have caught the FS by 66 and then the BIB by 66 before the "PF".
" I don't make the rules coach!"

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2011, 10:32:27 AM »
I'm going to take what will no doubt be an unpopular stance but I think this is a foul.  The shoulder is involved but I see the majority of the force being applied with the helmet.

Just my two cents. Flame retardant suit is on.

Time for you to take your NFHS butt back to Callyfornia boy!  We gonna have to disown you if you keep this up

busman

  • Guest
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2011, 11:31:18 AM »
What if it went a different route and took all the restrictions off of what IR could review on a coach's challenge?  Then put a two minute limit on the review, with an additional minute allowed if a call on the field was overturned and a determination had to be made of down, distance and clock?

If a coach felt the hit was illegal, he could use his challenge.  if he was right, he gets his challenge back.


Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 1010
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-6
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2011, 12:07:01 PM »
Did someone involved in ACC officiating really write that?  Targeting is Unsportsmanlike Conduct?

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2011, 12:15:21 PM »
If that's to ever be reviewable, then eliminate the on-field guys and just go 100% video officiating.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2011, 12:16:26 PM »
Statement from the Atlantic Coast Conference:
 

The Atlantic Coast Conference Office has completed its NCAA mandated review of the play that occurred at 1:58 of the 4th quarter of the Miami @ Florida State game in which Florida State’s Nigel Bradham was flagged for “Unsportsmanlike Conduct- Targeting an Opponent.”
 
Plays involving unsportsmanlike conduct and player safety have been an increasing point of emphasis within NCAA rules based upon the American Football Coaches Association and NCAA initiatives implemented to reduce the number of concussions.
 
Rule 9, Section 1, Article 4 of the NCAA Football Rules states: “No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.” A defenseless opponent includes a receiver whose attention is focused on receiving the ball. If the officials deem a foul flagrant, the offending player must be ejected.
 
Officials are required to make instantaneous decisions during high-speed game action. The officials ruled that there was question as to whether contact occurred to the head or neck area of Miami’s #2 and that the action was against a defenseless player. When there is question as to the specific area of contact, in accordance with NCAA rules which requires officials to err on the side of player safety, Unsportsmanlike Conduct must be called.
 
Following the required video review by the Conference Office, it has been determined that the contact made by Florida State’s Bradham was not to the head or neck of the receiving player nor was it flagrant. The play was a legal hit and no further action will be taken by the Conference Office.

Offline zebra99

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2011, 12:06:18 AM »
I guess the bottom line on targeting, etc. is that the related rules look great on paper and are well meaning, but combined with evaluation/grading pressures, have set up the officials for continued failure either way. 

I don't have a fix as high hits and resultant concussions radically increased in the last few years, we all know that.  Something had to be done.  Not sure any tweaking of the rules themselves will solve anything.

The pendulum is swinging too far one way but I have not a clue how to get it back.  Lessening the rule language doesn't work because I'm sure we all agree the pure reading of the current rules equals a foul if that's what occurs on the field.

Two very competent officials had a flag on this play so the powers to be need to think about that.

We really can't go backwards given the head injuries we saw under the old rules.  Let's face it, the old "football is a dangerous game so let 'em play" just doesn't get it anymore given the speed, size and forces generated.




Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2011, 04:43:19 AM »
How many times have we seen IR reviews of catch/no-catch on simple little 5 yard gain plays?  Yet here is essentially a 15 yard gain and a player DQ but IR is handcuffed?  There just seems to a fundamental unfairness about the situation.

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2011, 05:18:42 AM »
The other possibility is to tighten the rule yet further to make the judgement easier.  Could be that the only way to go is to make illegal any contact on a player in mid-air, or lower the acceptable contact line on a defenseless player to below the shoulders instead of below the neck.  Maybe not in the short term, but in 5, 10, 15 years, who can say what the situation will be.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2011, 05:27:54 AM »
Like Z99 said, more rule writing ain't gonna get it.  When we have players ducking or lowering themselves (deliberately or not) and then a resulting "high hit" , the written rule is not effective. You start writing a rule like that and how long will it be before someone wants to add "no hitting of a ball carrier below the waist".  Trying to legislate specific legall points of contact is doomed to failure in a game of such speed and athleticism.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • FAN REACTION: +107/-351
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2011, 09:13:40 AM »
I'd agree with TXMike here.  The rules are pretty clear as written, and writing more just makes for more unneeded reading and interpreting.  This play is pretty simple - a violent hit against a pass receiver that resulted in a judgment being made that was in error.  Does the "when in question" part make this one difficult to let go, absolutely.  Also, as previously noted many times, at this level of play, with the speed of the game and the ability of the athletes this is a tough call to make when we see it from ground level one time.  We all make mistakes once in a while, and I can't see replay getting involved in a call like this one or any new wording that would clarify the current rule so that we get it right 100% of the time - that ain't going to happen.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

110

  • Guest
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2011, 04:36:14 PM »
I think the issue that ought to be discussed is why the player was ejected: what triggered that decision?

I say that from the point of view that a player ought not to be ejected unless it was obvious to all and sundry that the individual did something that was a gross violation of the rules of the game.

Offline NorCalMike

  • *
  • Posts: 770
  • FAN REACTION: +23/-8
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2011, 11:40:33 PM »
I was watching this game. I thought it was a foul at full speed. With the replay, it is easy to see that it was a good hit. So maybe just use the replay to deal with fouls that result in DQ.

Offline James

  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-6
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2011, 06:23:41 AM »
Here is a good example of the similarities between the 'taters and politicians
Full speed - That was a foul.
After slow motion - That was a horrible call. That was a pretty good play.

Flip and Flop

OnlyRefFB

  • Guest
Re: Time for IR to Get Involved on Big Hits? (video)
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2011, 11:29:45 AM »
I think the issue that ought to be discussed is why the player was ejected: what triggered that decision?

I say that from the point of view that a player ought not to be ejected unless it was obvious to all and sundry that the individual did something that was a gross violation of the rules of the game.

Given the time remaining, 1:49 in the 4th, the DQ may have been in reaction more to player control considerations than the specific act. Of course, that also may not be the case as Miami was only down 10 points and even with no Time-outs could still tie/win the game.

In reviewing the video, I thought the interaction with the player could have been better. The DQ signal in his face isn't really necessary, just tell him that he needs to leave the field. Let the team remove him from the playing area. We already have options should a disqualified player refuse to leave, we don't need to be the "sheriff escorting the prisoner."