Targeting and carry over

[TXMike]

The try is blocked. On return of try B22 throws a blindside block against A45 that is an act of targeting.  Carryover the penalty to KO?

[ETXZebra]

 I think it carries over, and if B scores it's canceled by rule. B22 is ejected.

[Kalle]

I would think that targeting qualifies as a flagrant personal foul, so yes, carry over.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I would agree.  I don't see how a targeting foul would not be considered a flagrant personal foul.

[Kalle]

I have to qualify my statement. The relevant rule does specify only certain types of fouls that should carry over. I do think that the targeting fouls are in the same category, so unless told otherwise I'm going to carry those over. I'm just assuming that it is an editing error that the new category has not been included in the rule.

Then again, my track record with RR's rulings has been pretty poor.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The fact that the PF's that carry over on a try are those that leave the three players (snapper, holder, and kicker) vulnerable to serious injury IMHO supports the idea that targeting fouls that as Kalle notes have recently been given very high visibility in the rules primarily because of the risk of serious injury, should carry over.  Given how much visibility is now on these fouls, if I'm the R in the game, I'd say that the penalty enforcement should carry over.  Maybe RR will directly address this in the future?

[fbljuj]

The try is blocked. On return of try B22 throws a blindside block against A45 that is an act of targeting.  Carryover the penalty to KO?

A bit of a twist to this play, what if the blindside block is not vicious in nature but more of a block in the back by a defender to someone out of the play and the person receiving the hit is not "lit up". Are we going with targetting DQ?

[TXMike]

 It is not targeting if it does not involve a hit to the head or neck area or leading with the crown of the helmet.  The traditional hits on someone out of the play have always been subject to the offender being DQ'd if you judge the hit flagrant.  If not flagrant, just assess the appropriate penalty and move on.

[Joe Stack]

It is not targeting if it does not involve a hit to the head or neck area or leading with the crown of the helmet.

This plus against a defenseless player. It took me a while to get my head around why the defenseless player has to be part of the equation. Why, I asked, would you not want to eliminate targeting of ANY player. The answer, I believe, is that the intent of the rule is not to stop actions that are clearly considered a part of football and don't impose risks of serious injury. For example: take a look at some of the highlight films of Earl Cambell when he played for the Oilers and his punishing hits. Some might be considered targeting if the would be tackler was a defenseless player.  In that case, he only FELT defenseless!

[TXMike]

If it is a 9-1-3 targeting (crown of helmet) it does not matter if the player is defenseless or not.

[dvasques]

But 9-1-3 does not include actions by the ball carrier, like the NFL will this year

[Kalle]

But 9-1-3 does not include actions by the ball carrier, like the NFL will this year

Hmm? The ball carrier is not exempt from 9-1-3. If he lowers his head and intentionally drives at an opponent, that is a foul.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Hmm? The ball carrier is not exempt from 9-1-3. If he lowers his head and intentionally drives at an opponent, that is a foul.

Here's the 9-1-3, 9-1-4 "notes" language added for 2013-2014:

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

The last bullet statement in the Note 1 list as Kalle points out, has no blanket exemption for the ball carrier.

[Kalle]

And note that the A.R. 9-1-4-II that has the ball carrier lowering his head also has the opponent lowering his head. This is a different situation from only the ball carrier lowering his head and leading with the crown of his helmet at an opponent.

[Joe Stack]

targeting (crown of helmet) it does not matter if the player is defenseless or not.

That's true, but it also says that when in question, its a foul AND that the penalty includes an ejection. Are you going to eject a back that makes a move like Earl Campbell did in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9y_KZwOq9g

My point in all this is that the spirit of the rule is to allow for "football-type" plays and penalize contact that's designed to go beyond that. The note NVFOA posted supports this idea.

[TXMike]

I have never seem a runner target someone .  Every runner I have seen who bends over and his helmet makes contact with a tackler was just bending over to protect the ball or to make himself a smaller target.   I guess you could have someone who does target but I have never seen it in 42 years playing and watching

[TxSkyBolt]

And the mere fact that the crown of your helmet strikes an opponent is not, in and of itself, targeting. Dr Redding has made it clear that targeting is with intent to punish an opponent, not make a legitimate tackle.

[dvasques]

Has anybody ever spoke about targeting by the O-Line? In the neutral zone? Would that ever be possible?

[Kalle]

Has anybody ever spoke about targeting by the O-Line? In the neutral zone? Would that ever be possible?

Against a lineback or a safety, maybe. Against a defensive lineman, very doubtful.

[James]

We had a running back a few years ago who was a specialist at headbutting his tackler.
As the tackler got close, he would draw his head up and (he had really good timing!) strike out with the forehead just as the tackler was in range. Not targeting, but we did try to keep it to a minimum by giving him spearing fouls.

As for the O-Line, I could see that after a pass is thrown a D-Lineman might let up and no longer take part in the play (at some levels at least). Then you could have a blind-side or player no longer participation...