Katy vs. Manvel will come to fruition

[TXMike]

At the high school level, you're pretty sure he targeted but not 100% confident so you don't throw and the player is laying there unconscious. Do you still feel that philosophy is correct? I think at that level more than any other, everyone would be ok with you to error on the side of safety.

  That might lead to some guys doing this....you see the big hit that might be targeting so you drop the hanky.  As you are going to the R to report you note what is happening with the player who was hit.  He is laying there obviously in distress so you report targeting.  He jumps up with no obvious ill effects right after play is over and you report to the R that "after further review" there was no foul for targeting. I am not suggesting this as a road to follow, just throwing it out there that some folks might get to thinking that way if we get overly concerned about no flag for an injured player.

[HoustonRef]

  That might lead to some guys doing this....you see the big hit that might be targeting so you drop the hanky.  As you are going to the R to report you note what is happening with the player who was hit.  He is laying there obviously in distress so you report targeting.  He jumps up with no obvious ill effects right after play is over and you report to the R that "after further review" there was no foul for targeting. I am not suggesting this as a road to follow, just throwing it out there that some folks might get to thinking that way if we get overly concerned about no flag for an injured player.

Point taken, obviously not what I was suggesting.

[TXMike]

Bud has a great line,..."how would a flag have prevented that injury "

[HoustonRef]

Bud has a great line,..."how would a flag have prevented that injury "

But it might help prevent it from happening next time. Whereas no flag leads the player to think what he did was legal.

[TxBJ]

But it might help prevent it from happening next time. Whereas no flag leads the player to think what he did was legal.

+1

[BlindZebra]

But it might help prevent it from happening next time. Whereas no flag leads the player to think what he did was legal.

Possibly.  But if you had doubt then what the player did must have been legal to a degree.  I for one am not throwing on something that is a "maybe" foul to prevent something that would be a foul in the future.  Like Mike said earlier, my flag is not going to prevent the injury and if I am not sure I have targeting which is a foul that has the repercussions of an ejection, I'm going to be absolutely sure he targeted.

[TXMike]

Something that is getting lost in this discussion is this foul has one of the most severe penalties possible.  Yes the rules say when in question it is a foul but the rules also provide a process for reviewing the cal and getting it right hopefully.  We do not have the benefit of that process being available to us so I would use caution hanging my hat on the "when in question" aspect

[first_year_guy]

I don't work a whole lot of varsity football but I would think we would have the opposite mind set of "when in doubt" it is not a foul, since we don't have replay to confirm. I am not a fan of kicking a kid out of the game if I am not for sure he earned it.  Additionally the high school game is somewhat slower than what we so on TV so I think being "sure" should be something we should be able to handle most  of the time.

[fencewire]

Not TGT...

'Target' is not defined in the rule book because it shouldn't need to be, the defender here is simply going for the ball.. The contact is incidental. 

target - a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.

The receiver is not being attacked here, he is in the way. 

Think of it this way, would the defenders actions have been any different if the WR wasn't there.

[TexDoc]

Not TGT...

'Target' is not defined in the rule book because it shouldn't need to be, the defender here is simply going for the ball.. The contact is incidental. 

target - a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.

The receiver is not being attacked here, he is in the way. 

Think of it this way, would the defenders actions have been any different if the WR wasn't there.

Well put. 

[HoustonRef]

I don't work a whole lot of varsity football but I would think we would have the opposite mind set of "when in doubt" it is not a foul, since we don't have replay to confirm. I am not a fan of kicking a kid out of the game if I am not for sure he earned it.  Additionally the high school game is somewhat slower than what we so on TV so I think being "sure" should be something we should be able to handle most  of the time.

In the sense there is no replay, yes they need to be sure he did in fact target more so then in the games with replay. Like you said, since the HS game is slower than the higher levels, this should be easy to do. I'm speaking from a safety aspect and dealing with children, that if there were ever a time to error on the side of safety this would be the level. This play is not TGT, I'm talking the general philosophy on TGT. I could be wrong, this is just my opinion. But I'm usually right.

[first_year_guy]

You're the expert bud

[HoustonRef]

You're the expert bud

Your head hurtin after all that knowledge I just dropped on ya? #learningisfun #knowledgebomb  #yourewelcome

[Joe Stack]

But it might help prevent it from happening next time.

If that were true, there would be no game with 20+ fouls and no basketball games with 40+ fouls.

Even if, in football, if they were different types of fouls, at what point does the team realize, "hey, this crew WILL flag what they think are illegal actions..."

[HoustonRef]

If that were true, there would be no game with 20+ fouls and no basketball games with 40+ fouls.

Even if, in football, if they were different types of fouls, at what point does the team realize, "hey, this crew WILL flag what they think are illegal actions..."

This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read. If the fear of being ejected(HS and NCAA) or suspended and fined(NFL) hasn't changed the way the game is played then why have these types of hits/fouls been reduced so much over just the last couple years?

[HoustonRef]

My "going for the ball" comment was just confirmed on TNF by Mike Carey.

All doubters, I hope you have learned your lesson. Never doubt HoustonRef.

[TXMike]

Not that I think the original play here was targeting but you wanna bet a cold one in Abilene in July on whether or not I can find a clip of RR saying good call on a targeting called on a player going for the ball?   

[HoustonRef]

Not that I think the original play here was targeting but you wanna bet a cold one in Abilene in July on whether or not I can find a clip of RR saying good call on a targeting called on a player going for the ball?   

Abilene in July sounds miserable. Never doubt HoustonRef but also never doubt TxMike ability to get clips...of anything.
Also HR > RR