Targeting and IR

[TXMike]

http://youtu.be/yWrpM2CMOWI

[Magician]

Good video for discussion TxMike!  I'm usually one of the first to jump on these plays as fouls, but I'm not sure if RTP is the right call here.  He could have aimed a little lower and possibly held up more.  If I were a supervisor I would support the RTP call on the field, but I don't believe this is the type of hit we are looking to get an ejection.  I look forward to seeing guidance from RR on this.

[Kalle]

This is definitely one of those borderline cases that we need guidance on. Hopefully we'll hear from RR on this.

[dvasques]

RTP no doubt for me

TGT I don't know... I think there's no doubt the QB got hit in the head or neck area and he is defenseless. But I don't think I'd call that targeting

[MonsterRef]

Not sure I agree.  IMHO this hit meet the definition of targeting.  The QB is clearly in the act of passing (targeting) the defender clearly makes contact to the head.  I think the call on the field was correct, and respectfully disagree with the overturn.  And, not for nothing, but did anyone else notice that B8 shouldn't have been on the field due to illegal equipment?

[NVFOA_Ump]

.......  And, not for nothing, but did anyone else notice that B8 shouldn't have been on the field due to illegal equipment?

Pretty sure that his visor is OK.  The newer polarized (glare reducing) visors look tinted when viewed from an angle or on video cameras, but when viewed straight on they are clear and they have been deemed to be in compliance with the rules according to our preseason guidance.

[SanDiegoStryker]

But do you really think that the player "took aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or legal block or playing the ball?"

[MonsterRef]

But do you really think that the player "took aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or legal block or playing the ball?"

No, I don't.  But we don't officiate intent.  Just like I don't believe defenders aim at grabbing and twisting a facemask.  But when it happens, we throw and hang 15 on them.  I think part of the problem with this rule is the use of the word "targeting".  Targeting is just the word we are using to describe the foul.  It sounds like the act is deliberate in every circumstance, and indicates players are completing a melicious act. I don't think thats is the case.  So, we are hesitant to call it.  That doesn't change the fact that the foul took place.  When we officiate each play, we simply call what we see.  Some players commit the act to cheat and gain an advantage, some commit the act because of the position their in at the time.  Either way, when we see it, we throw.

[Kalle]

No, I don't.  But we don't officiate intent.

Unfortunately in targeting calls we have to officiate intent, as the rule requires that.

[NVFOA_Ump]

No, I don't.  But we don't officiate intent.  ........ we simply call what we see. 

Kalle is correct.  Per the actual rule book explanation, and the multiple pre-season videos and presentations, we absolutely are required to factor in intent when determining if we have a 9-1-3 or 9-1-4 call.  Additionally, the rules give some very good guidance as to what types of actions qualify for a possible targeting call.

Notes to 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 (From pages FR-87 and FR-88 in the rulebook)

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

[SanDiegoStryker]

I do not believe we can compare this to a face mask foul. What you said is true, in 9-1-8-b there is no mention of intent so it is a foul even if it was not intentional. However, 9-1-4 is titled Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player. You have to have both. And as was mentioned above, targeting is not "just a word we use." It is defined to include intent.

[MonsterRef]

Unfortunately in targeting calls we have to officiate intent, as the rule requires that.

I do not believe we can compare this to a face mask foul. What you said is true, in 9-1-8-b there is no mention of intent so it is a foul even if it was not intentional. However, 9-1-4 is titled Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player. You have to have both. And as was mentioned above, targeting is not "just a word we use." It is defined to include intent.

Okay, just so I understand, the only targeting calls we should make are when we determine the defender intended to make contact to the head of a defenseless player?  I get where your coming from but, I would have a hard time explaining to my assigner that I didn't call it because it just fell into the PF category and I didn't think the defender intended to make that type of contact.   In the video that started this one, I don't think the defender intended to make the contact he did, but, he made it.  So, I feel like the call on the field was correct.  I'm applying the when in doubt rule.

Also, not comparing this to a facemask, just using it as an example.  My only point on that is, when I see it, I throw.  It is going to be very hard for me to try and determine if these fouls are intentional or not.  Again, given the amount of emphasis this year, in the above video, I would rather explain why I called it and a player was ejected, than have to explain why I didn't make the call at all.

[beaye1]

From the 1st CFO quiz:
10. Receiver A22 comes out of the backfield and runs a pass pattern across the middle. He leaps to make the catch, and while he is airborne he is hit by defender B33 just after A22 touches the ball. B33 executes this action by launching, hurling himself at A22, and driving his forearm and shoulder into A22’s chest, separating him from the ball, which falls to the ground for an incomplete pass.
a. Targeting foul by B33, who is disqualified from the game.
b. Legal play because the initial contact is not to the head or neck area of A22.
c. A22 is not a defenseless player.
REFERENCES: 9-1-4
COMMENTS: It is important to remember that 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 each have two components: targeting and contact with the crown of the helmet (9-1-3) or targeting and contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player (9-1-4). This action by B33 has the elements of targeting (launch, etc.) but does not have the contact to the head/neck area of this defenseless player, so it is not a foul. Both components must be present in order for the action to be illegal.

[Kalle]

I get where your coming from but, I would have a hard time explaining to my assigner that I didn't call it because it just fell into the PF category and I didn't think the defender intended to make that type of contact.

Always do what your supervisor wants you to do.