Georgia-Vandy Targeting

[mccormicw]

http://thebiglead.com/2013/10/19/this-hit-got-georgias-ray-drew-ejected-for-targeting/#sthash.x5SimyCM.uxfs

[StudyingFutureZebra]

He contacted the QB's helmet with his facemask, and it looks like the leg that was in the air was in stride, so I'd overturn the ejection. Another thing I notice is that before the Georgia player made contact with the QB, the ref had the flag cocked and ready to go. Does anybody have a clip of the Missouri/Florida game?

[RunRickyRun]

I have clear targeting on the DL-v-QB, and nothing on the DB-v-WR. 

The idea that since he hit the helmet with his facemask instead of something else is a reason not to call targeting is asinine.  If he initiates contact to the head with ANY part of his head/shoulder/arm/hand you have targeting.  Of those, what does the defender have more control over than the location of his facemask?

[StudyingFutureZebra]

I have clear targeting on the DL-v-QB, and nothing on the DB-v-WR. 

The idea that since he hit the helmet with his facemask instead of something else is a reason not to call targeting is asinine.  If he initiates contact to the head with ANY part of his head/shoulder/arm/hand you have targeting.  Of those, what does the defender have more control over than the location of his facemask?

Well honestly, I think the whole targeting rule itself is asinine, but the rule states leading with the crown of the helmet. The facemask is not the crown of the helmet so I would overturn the ejection.

[RunRickyRun]

Well honestly, I think the whole targeting rule itself is asinine, but the rule states leading with the crown of the helmet. The facemask is not the crown of the helmet so I would overturn the ejection.

Study more.

There are 2 separate rules governing targeting.

9-1-3 - Leading with the crown of the helmet and contacting anywhere on any player (previously called spearing)

9-1-4 - Initiating contact at the head/neck area on a defenseless player.  Such illegal contact could be initiated with the head, shoulder, arm or hand.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I've got no problem with this call.  Maybe not the textbook "big hit" targeting call but fits the rule and was clearly a 100% avoidable head hit well after the ball was gone.  IMO this was an intentional "I'll see how much I can imtimidate the QB." hit.

[StudyingFutureZebra]

I've got no problem with this call.  Maybe not the textbook "big hit" targeting call but fits the rule and was clearly a 100% avoidable head hit well after the ball was gone.  IMO this was an intentional "I'll see how much I can imtimidate the QB." hit.

That's another reason I'm against this rule. Sorry, but that to me sounded like, "Yeah it was a legal hit, but I'm going to throw him out just to make a point." And yet some of you were mad at me for saying, "it's a bad rule, be more lenient on it."

[Rulesman]

...some of you were mad at me for saying, "it's a bad rule, be more lenient on it."

It might be because most here don't have a problem with the rule.

[StudyingFutureZebra]

I care far more about the spirit of the game, personally. There was no need for this rule, and a little research reveals it was mainly created out of fear of litigation. After the NFL got sued over the Junior Seau thing, the NCAA took the same approach as the US Government did towards airport security after 9/11: Institute all these new policies and programs to make it look like we're doing something so we don't get accused of doing nothing. While the TSA made new policies such as taking off your shoes and banning anyone who's not a ticketed passenger from going through security, the NCAA decided to do everything it could to reduce the number of kickoff returns and use ejections to try and eliminate hitting from the game to make it look like it was doing something instead of nothing.

[TxSkyBolt]

I care far more about the spirit of the game, personally. There was no need for this rule, and a little research reveals it was mainly created out of fear of litigation. After the NFL got sued over the Junior Seau thing, the NCAA took the same approach as the US Government did towards airport security after 9/11: Institute all these new policies and programs to make it look like we're doing something so we don't get accused of doing nothing. While the TSA made new policies such as taking off your shoes and banning anyone who's not a ticketed passenger from going through security, the NCAA decided to do everything it could to reduce the number of kickoff returns and use ejections to try and eliminate hitting from the game to make it look like it was doing something instead of nothing.

Can't really argue with that.

[Magician]

I care far more about the spirit of the game, personally. There was no need for this rule, and a little research reveals it was mainly created out of fear of litigation. After the NFL got sued over the Junior Seau thing, the NCAA took the same approach as the US Government did towards airport security after 9/11: Institute all these new policies and programs to make it look like we're doing something so we don't get accused of doing nothing. While the TSA made new policies such as taking off your shoes and banning anyone who's not a ticketed passenger from going through security, the NCAA decided to do everything it could to reduce the number of kickoff returns and use ejections to try and eliminate hitting from the game to make it look like it was doing something instead of nothing.

They aren't taking hitting out of the game.  They are taking hitting with or to the head out of the game.  It's not necessary.  Some incidental helmet contact will always happen and it will not always be a foul.  At the HS and small college level we very rarely see hits that would be considered targeting under the NCAA rule.  It can be done.  Too many players are trying to "blow-up" opponents rather than tackle or block them legally.

If too many people think the way you do the problem will eventually go away, because this game will go the way of boxing.  A nice sport that very few people watch and very few children play.  I'd rather protect the future of the game.

[James]

I care far more about the spirit of the game, personally. There was no need for this rule, and a little research reveals ...

I don't mean any disrespect, but you have shown in numerous posts that you don't have much use for rules as they are, and rarely even look them up before talking about them.
It is nice that you care about the game - your (I hope you don't mind be using this adjective) uneducated opinion of the rules might be a good counter-balance here sometimes, so that the experiences officials don't loose sight of how the common fan sees the rules, the game and the job they are doing, but  don't forget that the rules are made by the coaches, and we enforce them to the best of our abilities with player safety being foremost in our minds.


This of course being said by someone who grew up before helmet rules were enforced for pee-wee hockey, so my parents kept me from the sport to protect me. Does anyone know how humiliating it is to be a CANADIAN that doesn't play hockey?!? 

[NVFOA_Ump]

That's another reason I'm against this rule. Sorry, but that to me sounded like, "Yeah it was a legal hit, but I'm going to throw him out just to make a point." And yet some of you were mad at me for saying, "it's a bad rule, be more lenient on it."

No need to rephrase what I wrote - this was an illegal hit 100% of the time and should draw the flag 100% of the time.  There is no legal way to hit a QB in the head after he has released a pass and the rules are now very clear on that.  If you want to go back to the days of leather helmets that's fine, but don't waste your time "studying" to be an official with today's rules.

And trying to minimize concussions in todays game is not some kind of CYA strategy - it needs to be done and done now.

[maven]

What's so hard about requiring defenders to lower their target? Is anyone really against player safety?

[Rulesman]

Is anyone really against player safety?

StudyFutureZebra seems to be running down that path...

[StudyingFutureZebra]

StudyFutureZebra seems to be running down that path...

Football is a dangerous game by design. If you want player safety, play flag football. And it's really not that dangerous considering some of the other sports out there. Watch Rugby or Australian Football. 100 times more brutal and it makes American Football look like Tennis in terms of safety.

That and it's really getting to the point of being overofficiated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFRlQWhpXh8 In this clip, the pursuing defender's momentum was going to carry him into the QB and he gets flagged for roughing the passer anyway. Back in the day, even in the early to mid 2000's, things like that would never have been called. My rule of thumb on that is that I'd only flag you for hitting the QB if you hit him more than 2 seconds after the ball is thrown. I just miss the good old days of football, and unless the mentality changes, they're gone forever.

[Legacy Zebra]

First of all, you say its dangerous by design, then say that it really isn't dangerous. Which is it?

Second, I do watch rugby and Aussie Rules. You know what I see? I see players making solid, fundamental tackles that don't involve hitting a player high.

[maven]

Football is a dangerous game by design. If you want player safety, play flag football.

I would encourage you to think about what you're advocating here. What's the objective, to create a game that is dangerous? In that case, why not give them knives, too? Or guns?

I dispute the idea that what makes football fun is the prospect that someone will be seriously injured during the game.

And I dispute the premise that, in order for the game to have any interest or entertainment value, we must ignore player safety.

Small minds insist that only one thing can be important. Football fans value tradition, the vigor and energy of the game, a sense of fairness, AND player safety. Once we recognize all those values, the tricky part is figuring out how to balance them together. Figuring that out is how the game evolves.

People throughout the game, at every level, have begun to promote player safety, and I think that's a healthy development. To say it's either old-school or flag football is a false choice that fails to take seriously the hard work of balancing multiple dimensions of the game.

[StudyingFutureZebra]

I'm saying that it's dangerous, but not as bad as it possibly could be. I worded that one wrong.

[StudyingFutureZebra]

I would encourage you to think about what you're advocating here. What's the objective, to create a game that is dangerous? In that case, why not give them knives, too? Or guns?

I dispute the idea that what makes football fun is the prospect that someone will be seriously injured during the game.

And I dispute the premise that, in order for the game to have any interest or entertainment value, we must ignore player safety.

Small minds insist that only one thing can be important. Football fans value tradition, the vigor and energy of the game, a sense of fairness, AND player safety. Once we recognize all those values, the tricky part is figuring out how to balance them together. Figuring that out is how the game evolves.

People throughout the game, at every level, have begun to promote player safety, and I think that's a healthy development. To say it's either old-school or flag football is a false choice that fails to take seriously the hard work of balancing multiple dimensions of the game.

I'm saying it's over-officiated, and that the NCAA is making so many rules that have only a negative impact on the game of football and that try to fix problems that aren't really problems. Like for instance the fact that unsportsmanlike conduct/excessive celebration is now a live ball foul, and the touchdown is coming back. Diving into the end zone does not have any impact on the final score or give one team an unfair advantage over the other. It seemed like back in the first half of the 2000's, the officials were more seen and not heard.

I and a lot of other people are getting the feeling that football is turning into the NBA, where the average number of fouls called in a game is about 45.

[Osric Pureheart]

The NCAA is making so many rules that have only a negative impact on the game of football and that try to fix problems that aren't really problems.

What, this isn't really a problem?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/the_bonus/05/10/owen.thomas/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/college-football-star-died-wilderness-brain-disease-autopsy-article-1.1422219
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1972285
www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/health/the-tragedy-of-cte-a-brain-disease-that-afflicts-athletes-687282/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/sports/football/ray-easterling-autopsy-found-signs-of-brain-disease-cte.html

[TheRulesGenie]

I am a young official (5 years) who has posted on this board just a couple of times, but I'm alarmed by SFZ's comments. I am trying to break into D-II, and have to say that your job as an official is to enforce the laws as they are written. Just because you don't like a rule, doesn't make it okay to not enforce it, and enforce it to the letter of the law.

I would equate it to the talk about legalizing marijuana. Some police officers might disagree with the fact that it is illegal, but it is their job to arrest those in possession of weed. If they fail to do so, they run the risk of losing their job.

This is the rule that the COACHES implemented. Does it need tweaking? That's up to those who write the rules. We are simply there to enforce the rule.

SFZ, I appreciate you trying to learn and get better as an official. But after reading some of your posts on this site, I would say that you need to get into the rule book. Arguments in officiating need to be based in fact, i.e. with the rule behind it. That's why we wear black and white. There is no grey in our uniforms.

[StudyingFutureZebra]

So I take it pragmatists don't make good officials.

[Welpe]

So I take it pragmatists don't make good officials.

Quite the contrary. You can be an idealist all day but practically speaking, you make the calls that are expected of you or they find somebody else who will.

There are many rules and philosophies I personally disagree with (the liberal interpretation of in the area for intentional grounding being one such example) but I'm expected to call the game a certain way. If I don't, I get replaced with somebody who will.

The idealist in me loathes how certain things work in officiating, the pragmatist in me calls the game I'm expected to. I'd rather be working games than sitting at home complaining (I do enough of that anyways)!

[Diablo]

You can be an idealist all day but practically speaking, you make the calls that are expected of you or they find somebody else who will.

Beyond the fact that applying your own interpretations will get you raking leaves instead of running the lines on autumn Saturdays, the players and coaches need & deserve to have consistency amongst the officials .... play-by-play and week-to-week.  We wear the same uniform and vow to make the same calls. 

If you don't like a rule or interpretation, plea your case to the secretary-rules editor or a member of the rules committee.  They listen well.