One of the 1st targeting calls of the season

[TXMike]

http://youtu.be/kqtMN3FbBw0

May not be the 1st but sure will not be the last.  The video may not be live for 15-30 minutes as it is uploading.  From Rice - Texas A & M game today

[Rulesman]

IMO the U got it right.

[TxSkyBolt]

Looked like head to the side, shoulder to the chest.

[TXMike]

That's the thing....where does the neck stop and the chest begin.  Even last year it seemed that many calls were made for hits to that upper chest area, just below where I think most folks would say the neck starts.   That may be an area  where the supervisors want a flag.  And since the rule says "head or neck AREA" maybe anything "in the area" of the neck should count. 

[todd.gundlach@norwoodligh]

Definitely launched - appears the hit was at the shoulder/neck - this is a defenseless player - IMO the DQ will be upheld.

[TXMike]

Shoulder?

[Reverend30]

Could be interesting - I think this may be the first one to be protested all the way up to RR.

[TxSkyBolt]

Were told that once IR rules, there is no appeal process. Only appeal is for those games without IR.

[psv]

Interesting.  @ 1:39 i think is the best slow mo shot of this.  1:43 shows the contact.

Head certainly looks to the side, contact with the shoulder was to the chest.

This looks really, REALLY similar to some pretty hard hits RR showed at our state meeting that were good hits.

I would love for someone with some inside knowledge to respond with the philosophy here.  I mean, was it just that he launched (because he certainly did) and the player was defenseless (because he certainly was).  If that is the bar, fine it would be easier to call that way anyways.  But, from all the exceptions I have seen, this looks to be in that vein.

[Andrew McCarthy]

Looks legal to me.

[Osric Pureheart]

Does anyone think they might have a flag for disregarding the ball, regardless of the targeting issue?

[justaLJ]

I think a case can be made for UNR, based on avoidable contact, but not TGT.

This is similar to question #10 on the first CFO quiz.  There was a bit of a launch, but the contact was clearly to the chest, and I think the replay official had enough IVE to overturn the DQ.

[Joe Stack]

This is why I don't like this rule -- because it was targeting by any definition but the one in the NCAA football rules, which requires it to be against a defenseless player in the head or neck area. Why not eliminate any targeting against any defenseless player and eliminate all hits (other than incidental) to the head or neck area against ANY player? I think this could be a PF, but I don't think its targeting worthy of an ejection.

[bossman72]

Looks like a good hit to me.  The U was in the worst position to see this hit and the was the one throwing the flag.  Ouch

[NVFOA_Ump]

Looks like a good hit to me.  The U was in the worst position to see this hit and the was the one throwing the flag.  Ouch

I've got to agree the official with the poorest position and view, he's 100% screened from the defender by the receiver, has the only flag?  At least two other officials should have had an excellent view of the contact but no other flags?  Based on our preseason instructions this should have resulted in a conference with the other covering officials and IMO based on what we can see in the video resulted in no targeting call.

[Magician]

This doesn't fit the definition of targeting.  But it does fit the definition of a defender hitting a defenseless player high and blowing him up.  Completely unnecessary hit (he had plenty of time to let up) so I support getting him off the field.

[InsideTheStripes]

I have a feeling that the defender will be playing in the first half next week.

[dvasques]

I don't know if review had any more video angles of this but from the ones I've seen, I'd take the DQ away from that... didn't see contact with head or neck area...

[TxSkyBolt]

There is no appeal available according to the guidelines established. Here's an excerpt from those guidelines:

(for games with IR) "When there is a second-half targeting foul, the suspension for the first half of the
next game may not be appealed. Furthermore, the conference does not have
authority to vacate the suspension."

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Arbitrator]

 

IMHO, it appears to be targeting a defenseless player, plain and simple!

My bold prediction for 2014: watch the targeting zone be extended downward to the top of the numbers on the jersey, to monitor the possibility of thoracic injuries as well.

Then you'll see those numerals being raised up on the front of the jersey!

If you happen to read the commentary on sites like YouTube that show these clips, you'll find that there are far too many collegiate fans that think that the new targeting rules is doing nothing more than to "wussify" the game. Their thirst for violence exceeds their logical comprehension of safety for the players.

I only have two solutions for them:

• Just quit watching NCAA football and hope that a majority of member schools do "a 180" in getting the NCAA Rules Committee to totally drop "targeting," and ~
  
• If they really want to valiantly defend the banning of "targeting" per se, then just let them come to an NCAA pregame activity and have some kind of a mechanical device set up that has a helmet attached to it, and after having them sign-off on both a medical and a legal disclaimer, and donning a helmet and shoulder pads, let that device simply hammer them into submission with a blow to the appropriately defined area.

 


This should be something right along the lines of that safety device known as "The Convincer," that law enforcement agencies, safety councils and insurance companies use to richly make their points in getting the public to support the legally mandated use of seat belts! 

I'd greatly wager that there would be quite a few attitudes changed about it then!

[/list]

[Sonofanump]

Did the player lead with crown of the helmet, no.
Was the palyer defenseless, yes.
Was the contact in the head or neck area, yes.
Targeting with DQ.

I agree that U had a bad view, I think this was S's call.

[tx29]

I have to wonder about the H,S &B not coming in to take the U off of this call. They all had better angles to view this play.   His was the worst view, totally straight lined,  and he had the least amount of time to see the whole play as it developed.  Then RO totally booted the reversal.  This was, as mentioned earlier, one of the few hard hits that is still legal, IMO. 
 

[Jugster]

To me the contact looks to be in the chest and not the neck area. Since the new rules states that the targeting must meet two very specific criteria (crown of helmet or contact in head or neck area), I don't think this should have been a disqualification. I do think it was a late hit but targeting? Nah