MI/NW Targeting reversal and later call

[BrendanP]

This is the only video I can find of the one that was confirmed:

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/10/michigan_lb_james_ross_ejected.html

I watched this one as a spectator and not an official, but I must say that I have never been that upset with an officiating crew, even before I became an official. The fact that the first one in which a sliding quarterback was hit in the helmet with the crown of the defender's helmet wasn't targeting, and then a hit at the shoulder level that did not include head or neck contact, is targeting.

Heck, in the game I worked last night, I threw a targeting flag: the defender clocked the ball carrier in the facemask leading with the crown of his helmet. That one met all the criteria. So did the one they overturned. But of course, the one they didn't overturn didn't meet any of the criteria for a targeting call. /rant

[Legacy Zebra]

How does that not meet the criteria for targeting? It is a player in the process of catching a pass and there is forcible contact to the head. You can even see the receiver's head snap back after the defender hits him in the facemask. I didn't see the one you mentioned with the sliding quarterback, but the video you linked was a text book targeting.

[BrendanP]

All right, I'm going to be quiet now, but from my view of it, since the pass was tipped, that makes the receiver eligible to be hit. Now I had thought that since it wasn't the crown of the helmet there, that no, it's not targeting. I still wouldn't have thrown the flag though. Hopefully a video of the first one will come up, but on that play QB#15 slides after running for 10 yards, and then a LB comes in and nails him in the head with the crown of his helmet and that one was reversed.

[Legacy Zebra]

The receiver can be hit, he just can't be hit in the head or neck area and the ball being tipped has nothing to do with it. The crown issue is a separate rule. There is crown of the helmet targeting in 9-1-3, and then there is defenseless player targeting in 9-1-4. This is 9-1-4 and does not have to be with the crown or even the helmet at all. 9-1-4 could be with the hand, fist, forearm, elbow, shoulder, or head. If any of those things make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player, it's targeting.

[scrounge]

That is one of the easier targeting calls I've seen, precisely why the rule was written.

[Kalle]

All right, I'm going to be quiet now, but from my view of it, since the pass was tipped, that makes the receiver eligible to be hit.

Please review the NCAA rules 2-27-14 and 9-1-4. Tipping has no bearing on targeting (it does on pass interference), and like LZ said, the action on the video meets all the criteria for targeting. Had the replay official reversed the call, I think it would have been his last replay assignment this season, this is so text book targeting.

[BrendanP]

Point taken. I was instructed by my association (again, NFHS) that I'm to throw the flag only when the hit involves the crown of the helmet and is blatantly vicious (sp) I guess maybe my higher-ups need a refresher as well?

[Kalle]

Point taken. I was instructed by my association (again, NFHS) that I'm to throw the flag only when the hit involves the crown of the helmet and is blatantly vicious (sp) I guess maybe my higher-ups need a refresher as well?

You better ask the NFHS officiating gurus if the action in the clip would be targeting in NFHS. Sometimes the NFHS is very different from NCAA, and it is entirely possible that this action would be legal there (though I doubt it, this is a safety issue and usually NFHS is tougher on safety rules than NCAA).

[Rulesman]

...throw the flag only when the hit involves the crown of the helmet and is blatantly vicious (sp) I guess maybe my higher-ups need a refresher as well?

Your are correct in your assessment. A refresher is in order. Start with Rule 2-20-2.