Thoughts on UIL's Exception to Targeting Penalty

[bctgp]

I'm interested in the forum's feedback on the new UIL Exception to the Targeting Foul. Different levels of Penalties based on whether the Targeting is deemed Flagrant or not determines if a DQ is also included in the penalty enforcement. See UIL exception #38 of attached for description.




[attachment deleted by admin]

[TXMike]

Finally .   The auto DQ is fine when you have something helping you get it right (IR).  It is too severe a penalty for a hit That too many times just happened.  The game and players are so fast, the collisions sometimes too dynamic, and our views so limited, we made mistakes that were uncorrectable.  And many of us were so reluctant to mistakenly DQ we might have held flags that should have been thrown. We may have been unintentionally perpetuating the illegal hitting by some of our players. 

[Legacy Zebra]

My main issue is that there has been no guidance as to what UIL/TASO wants to be considered flagrant. And this affects both types of targeting.

In my opinion, 9-1-3 is almost impossible to be flagrant by itself by definition unless you would also rule it flagrant UNR if the contact was with something other than the crown of the helmet. The definition of a flagrant personal foul involves contact that endangers an opponent. Hitting an opponent with the crown of your helmet does not put them in danger of catastrophic injury any more than hitting with say a shoulder. It puts the person delivering the hit in danger which is why it's a foul, but that does not affect the definition of a flagrant personal foul.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how you can have a 9-1-4 targeting that isn't flagrant. In my opinion, any time a player launches (or exhibits another indicator of targeting) and makes forcible contact to the head of a defenseless player is flagrant by definition. If you rule that there is no indicator as listed in the rule or you rule it to be incidental contact, then you don't even have a foul to begin with.

So until or unless we get some guidance, I think the change was not thought out very well.

[centexsports]

I agree with Mike.   But I also agree with Legacy.   On the other hand, I disagree with both.   What is an official to do?

My crew has not DQ'ed anybody due to targeting.   I will say that the vast majority of calls I have seen on film or replay, seem to be where the defensive player hits the runner in the chest and there is collateral contact with the runners head or face mask.   The other one is where the runner changes position just before the hit and causes there to be contact with the head.

Given the new direction, I will be more likely to call a non DQ penalty.   I think it is fair to penalize for yardage to stop/change a technique but the DQ for every questionable hit was too much.   

[TXMike]

Leading with the crown of the helmet is (nowadays) viewed as something that could cause catastrophic injury to player hit ( and clearly to the hitter ). By implied definition and intent it is flagrant. 

The intent of the rule exception is to make guys more willing to flag the When in question hits .  If you saw something in the past and you “knew” it fit the definition of targeting , flag it and DQ.  But if you saw a hit and you were not sure if all the parameters for targeting had been met , what did you do?  The change is designed to encourage you to flag that one as the “simple “ targeting.  Maybe you flagged and DQd in the past.  And maybe you were right or maybe you were wrong.   Too many others passed on it totally.  Nobody is asking you to assess each hit and determine if flagrant or not.  If you know it was targeting by the rulebook definition, it was flagrant so DQ.  But if you don’t know for sure, then just assess the “simple” penalty and move on.

[ElvisLives]

My main issue is that there has been no guidance as to what UIL/TASO wants to be considered flagrant. And this affects both types of targeting.
Legacy, it isn't the "flagrant" targeting fouls for which we have little direction, it is the non-flagrant category.  What the UIL calls "flagrant" is true targeting, by definition.  If it has all of the elements required, whether 9-1-3 or 9-1-4, then it is true traditional targeting, and results in a DQ.  All of the training video and bulletins that have been made available to us over the past several years, particularly by the NCAA, are our guide for these.  In that respect, there is no difference between 2018 and 2019.
For these traditional and true targeting fouls, we have chosen to use the word "flagrant" solely to distinguish them from those situations in which we there is a very high probability that all of the required targeting elements are there, but we just aren't 100% positive about one of the elements.  Those we have chosen to designate as "non-flagrant," because the UIL has developed a targeting procedure for 2019 that allows a foul to be called on what appears to be targeting, but the crew can't be 100% positive that an element of the targeting is truly present.  In those cases, there will be the distance penalty, but not the DQ.

This has come about because the THSCA recognizes that, without the luxury of HD quality/multi-angle video replay, it is extremely difficult to verify that all of the required elements of targeting are present when a "big hit" happens on the field.  They asked the UIL to provide a mechanism by which officials could call more fouls on these violent hits.  They are concerned that a lot of true targeting fouls are not being called, for fear on the part of the officials of DQing a player on less-than-perfect information.  They understand that we are human, and don't want to send somebody to the showers (so to speak) for something we may not be 100% positive about.  But they (THSCA and UIL) need to be proactive on this front, because of the potential for serious injury. So, they have designed a procedure that allows us to make a call when something looks highly likely to be targeting, but we aren't 100% positive.

Indeed, it is these types of plays that we simply don't have a lot of direction and examples.  We are all blazing new territory, territory that is very gray.  We are being asked to do our part in changing the "big hit" culture of football.  This culture change is the domino effect from the NFL, NHL and the NCAA, and now the UIL, who must be seen as taking positive steps to reduce player injury, or face the consequences of legal challenges from injured players. 

We'll probably need a couple of seasons of "trial and error" to narrow the direction to one that is more black & white.  But, for now, we need to err on the side of player safety.  If it is a big, ugly, highly suspicious hit, we need to get down a flag, discuss, and decide if all of the elements are there.  If so, 15 and DQ.  If not, 15 only.


In my opinion, 9-1-3 is almost impossible to be flagrant by itself by definition unless you would also rule it flagrant UNR if the contact was with something other than the crown of the helmet. The definition of a flagrant personal foul involves contact that endangers an opponent. Hitting an opponent with the crown of your helmet does not put them in danger of catastrophic injury any more than hitting with say a shoulder. It puts the person delivering the hit in danger which is why it's a foul, but that does not affect the definition of a flagrant personal foul.
I guess I'm in quite the opposite camp.  I don't see how a 9-1-3 can be anything but true targeting.  The fact that the attacker is hitting with the crown of his helmet means that the indicator is there.  If he makes forcible contact, then you have all of the required elements for 9-1-3.  If you attend the TASO state meeting you will see some clear examples of 9-1-3 targeting.  I suppose a player could make non-forcible contact with the crown of his helmet, which would not qualify as 9-1-3. 

On the other hand, I'm not sure how you can have a 9-1-4 targeting that isn't flagrant. In my opinion, any time a player launches (or exhibits another indicator of targeting) and makes forcible contact to the head of a defenseless player is flagrant by definition. If you rule that there is no indicator as listed in the rule or you rule it to be incidental contact, then you don't even have a foul to begin with.
Again, if you attend the TASO state meeting, you will see at least one example of a POSSIBLE 9-1-4 situation in which there is truly no indicator, thus, no foul, even though there was definite contact to the opponent's head/neck area.

So until or unless we get some guidance, I think the change was not thought out very well.

The greatest difficulties are:
1) Re-training ourselves to look ahead of/around potential victims, to see the entire action.  Off-side guys are simply going to have to be vigilant in this.
2) The lack of education of coaches on this new UIL procedure, and the total ignorance of the spectators on this new procedure.  When Little Johnny gets DQd in the first half, but then an opponent does not get DQd in the second half, we're gonna have Little Johnny's momma to answer to as we are coming off the field.

[TXMike]

Clearly I am failing .  I’ll try again.   

Do not get wrapped up trying to determine if a specific hit is flagrant or not.  That is not the intent. If you see a hit that you know is targeting under the rules we have followed for years, it is a targeting with DQ.  If you see a hit that immediately struck you as being targeting but as you thought about it you questioned what you saw.  And when others on crew came to discuss you questioned even more if all the indicators you needed were seen. That puts it in question   When in question there should be a foul but it will be deemed the “simple” targeting with no DQ

[ElvisLives]

Clearly I am failing .  I’ll try again.   

Do not get wrapped up trying to determine if a specific hit is flagrant or not.  That is not the intent. If you see a hit that you know is targeting under the rules we have followed for years, it is a targeting with DQ.  If you see a hit that immediately struck you as being targeting but as you thought about it you questioned what you saw.  And when others on crew came to discuss you questioned even more if all the indicators you needed were seen. That puts it in question   When in question there should be a foul but it will be deemed the “simple” targeting with no DQ

Nah, you are not failing at all.  It is just that I like to say in three sentences what you (or most anybody else) can say in one. 
 
But, we're saying the same thing.  If it looks like targeting, throw the flag.  Discuss with the crew, if necessary, and decide if all elements are present (let's use the term "elements," not "indicators," because an "indicator" is one of the "elements" of targeting).  If so, Targeting, flagrant foul, distance penalty with DQ.  If not 100% sure of all of the elements - but it sure looked like it - Targeting, distance penalty only.  But, don't think those are your only choices.  During processing and discussion, you might also determine that one of the elements was definitely not there, at all, and decide to rule "no foul."

But I would suggest that we not take much time in discussing, especially if we decide on flagrant Targeting.  Any lengthy discussion will show some level of uncertainty.  To then announce flagrant targeting and DQ would truly draw, uh, "criticism" from the penalized institution.

As agreed, our announcements are to be:

(non-flagrant)
"Targeting, number 55, defense.  That's a 15 yard penalty; first down."

Or
(flagrant)
"Targeting, number 55 defense.  That's a 15 yard penalty; first down.  This was a flagrant foul.  Number 55 is disqualified."

Just remember:  This is something the THSCA asked the UIL to implement.  The coaches want this.  They want to change the culture, and they are asking us to play a big part in helping make that change.  So, let's do our part. Let's don't be hesitant to flag something that IS Targeting, or certainly looks for all the world to be Targeting.  Then process what we saw, as a crew, and make a decision. 

Robert

[TXMike]

Yiu mentioned something I left out. It is entirely possible after the discussion you rule no foul .  Don’t be afraid to wave it off in that situation.  Just because we had a flag at first does not mean we will end up with one

[ElvisLives]

And I forgot to mention that the action may be determined, through discussion, to not be targeting, but may still be another foul, such as Kick Catch Interference, Roughing the Passer, Roughing the Kicker/Holder, Pass Interference, UNR for late hit, etc.  Conceivably, it could even be an illegal Block in the Back, I.e., what might have looked like a 9-1-3 to the back of an opponent from one angle, someone with another angle clearly saw the attacker strike with side of his helmet, and not the crown.  If other conditions for a BIB exist, then you could still have the BIB foul, just not targeting.

So, you will have one of four things:  1) TGT (flagrant), 2) TGT, 3) some other foul, 4) no foul.

Robert

[Neckbone]

I have seen a "few" instances where the ball carrier leads with the helmet.  Most of us have seen this and do not consider this to be targeting. This can be the exact definition of targeting.  I would like to hear some discussion on when and if you would call targeting on the ball carrier.

[TXMike]

Probably never in NCAA or Tx HS football until
They adopt the NFL rule .  In our game the presumption is the ball carrier is simply lowering himself to take a hit and to make his target smaller.

[TxBJ]

Be careful assuming that because THSCA asked for it then the coaches around the state wanted it. There will be a large number of coaches that don’t even realize the change was made.  And those that do will still get mad when their player gets disqualified but an opponent doesn’t.

And I can already hear the yelling about us calling something that we don’t know for sure was a foul.

I sincerely hope this turns out to be a positive change despite what my gut is telling me.

[ElvisLives]

Be careful assuming that because THSCA asked for it then the coaches around the state wanted it. There will be a large number of coaches that don’t even realize the change was made.  And those that do will still get mad when their player gets disqualified but an opponent doesn’t.

And I can already hear the yelling about us calling something that we don’t know for sure was a foul.

I sincerely hope this turns out to be a positive change despite what my gut is telling me.

When I say the coaches wanted this, yes, in fact I do mean that the THSCA want this.  They "represent" all Texas UIL coaches.  But then, we have Congressmen that represent us in government, and we don't always know what is going on within our government, either.  It is the same.  You are correct in assuming that only a handful of coaches will even be aware of the UIL's targeting procedure.  And there will be an element that will vehemently oppose this procedure, as well as the new BSB rule.  We know this, and just have to make our usual "adjustment." 
Robert