Misinterpretation of Targeting

[clearwall]

Im sure EVERYONE here has seen the Clowney hit during last year's Outback Bowl. IMO, beautiful tackle, great form power, all that. However, in numerous news articles and features that bemoan the crackdown on targeting and the new penalty that it carries, they use that play as one that 'could result in an ejection.' Am I missing something on that? What does this community say on the topic? To me, it looks like Clowney planted his chest into the RB's sternum, drove through and basically had a textbook strike zone tackle.

[TXMike]

Does not much matter what is thought here.  RR already said no foul. We can maybe thank pereira for this as he has said it WAS a foul.  I am going with RR

[clearwall]

Does not much matter what is thought here.  RR already said no foul. We can maybe thank pereira for this as he has said it WAS a foul.  I am going with RR

I totally, totally agree Mike. The problem is, I still have friends that believe these people because they write for the DMN or EsPN...I have to make the statement over and over again that 'NOTHING changed in regards to what is or is not a targeting foul. The ONLY thing that changed is enforcement."

[younggun]

Just offering my two cents. IMO Who during a live game would call that a foul or not a foul we dont get the replays, we dont get to slow it down in real time. The Big 10 commish came out and said at a meeting with the officials paraphrasing here, 'you miss one (targeting foul) you sit for a week.' Now with that in the back of your mind how many people are going to take these close calls and rule 'when in doubt'? Like I said, think about the game at full speed. I half blind 90 year old can make the call with replay and slowed down to .0005 speed. rant over...

[Welpe]

If you slow it down, you can see the crown of Clowney's helmet buried in the defender's chest. If that can be seen at real speed, my personal belief is that should be targeting. That said, it doesn't matter what I believe it's been since made clear that this is not a foul by RR and others. My personal opinion aside, I will call it as they've instructed.

[FLbackjudge]

Here's a twist--The Clowney hit was shown at the National Replay Clinic in Chicago with the following comment:  This is not a foul.  However, if the on-field officials call targeting, there is not enough visual evidence to reverse the disqualification.

[Kalle]

Here's a twist--The Clowney hit was shown at the National Replay Clinic in Chicago with the following comment:  This is not a foul.  However, if the on-field officials call targeting, there is not enough visual evidence to reverse the disqualification.

 

You can tell from the video that it is not a foul but if it is called, you can't tell from the same video if it fits the targeting criteria?

[TXMike]

Just sounds like they are telling IR guys that they need LOTS of evidence before they overturn a targeting call on the field.  Read between those lines.

[Welpe]

Just sounds like they are telling IR guys that they need LOTS of evidence before they overturn a targeting call on the field.  Read between those lines.

Seems to me the mantra has changed to "when in doubt, throw 'em out". Would you say that's about right?

[TXMike]

That is NOT what you should have been hearing from TASO clinicians.

[Welpe]

It isn't but that seems to be what you are alluding to. So enlighten me, what are you alluding to?

[TXMike]

I am saying that the message to college officials in conferences with IR and those IR officials is flag the close hits and let IR take away the DQ part if warranted.  We cannot do that because we do not have IR to bail us outh

[Rulesman]

I am saying that the message to college officials in conferences with IR and those IR officials is flag the close hits and let IR take away the DQ part if warranted.  We cannot do that because we do not have IR to bail us outh

Here is what one D-II supervisor (without IR) put out:

"With the concerns being heard about players disqualifying themselves due to targeting fouls, we will institute the following mechanic in every case where a targeting foul is called:
 
1. The calling official(s) will delay reporting the foul to the referee until the calling official(s) has briefly conferred with other officials who may have had a look at the targeting hit. This conference will include only a question about what was seen by the calling and non calling official(s). If, after the conference, the calling official(s) is 100% sure the targeting foul call is correct, he will report the foul to the referee for penalty administration. If, after the conference, there is any doubt by the calling official(s), the flag will be picked up, the referee will announce "There is no foul for targeting" and play will resume.
 
2. We will err on the side of safety. If you are the calling official and you do not get input from other officials that would give you any reason to believe the call is incorrect, you will stay with your call under the principal that we will err on the side of safety."

[Welpe]

I am saying that the message to college officials in conferences with IR and those IR officials is flag the close hits and let IR take away the DQ part if warranted.  We cannot do that because we do not have IR to bail us outh

OK I follow.

So maybe a better one would be flag 'em all and let IR sort 'em out?