2023-2 CFO/NCAA Off-Season Training Video

[ElvisLives]

The latest CFO/NCAA Off-Season Training Video on Targeting is really good. It shows examples of a wide variety of targeting fouls, in both 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 categories. And there are examples of 'suspicious' actions that are proven to be no-foul. The video quality is exceptional. Some of these examples show how difficult it is to see and verify, on the field, all of the components of a targeting foul. As Shaw states, due to the potential for injury, they are supportive of throwing flags for suspicious actions that may be targeting, and letting replay make the review and final determination.

This is the best reason to have an Arbiter/CFO subscription. But, most everybody knows somebody that has access, even if they don't, personally, have a subscription. And virtually every chapter has at least one guy with access (maybe the chapter, itself, has access). At the very least, a person with access can get online and show these videos at Chapter meetings. Everyone should look at these videos. They are very valuable.

As this Targeting video relates to UIL Football, we, and the UIL, know that we don't have the luxury of replay. So, the UIL enacted a new policy a couple of years ago that allows us to call a foul when we see a strongly suspicious action - that may be targeting - and then we put our collective heads together to see if we can confirm ALL of the elements of targeting. If so, then, yes, that's a targeting foul (with disqualification). If we can't confirm any one (or more) of the elements, then the action is NOT targeting, but we stay with personal foul, as unnecessary roughness, or late hit. If we can confirm that there was:
1) not contact with the crown of the attacker's helmet, and
2) not contact to the head-neck area of a defenseless player, and
3) not late, and
4) not excessive,

then there is no foul at all.
Check out the video, if you can, one way or another.

[dammitbobby]

Video link (no CFO registration/membership required)

https://www.brainshark.com/1/player/arbitersports?fb=0&r3f1=&custom=23cfopretraining2

[TXMike]

Where did all the old arbitersports material go???  Looks like thatlink is no longer working

[ETXZebra]

I noticed the same thing. Maybe it’s down for maintenance.

[Rob S]

NCAA just moved from Arbiter to RefQuest which opened up last week for 2023/24 season registration. They put all the material from the last few years on RQ and looks like the "CFO Central Hub" is gone from Arbiter.

[Kalle]

NCAA just moved from Arbiter to RefQuest which opened up last week for 2023/24 season registration. They put all the material from the last few years on RQ and looks like the "CFO Central Hub" is gone from Arbiter.

Blah, in addition to increasing the yearly fee non-US officials actually cannot register for an RQ account  :'( (SMS codes available only for US phone numbers)

[TxSkyBolt]

Video link (no CFO registration/membership required)

https://www.brainshark.com/1/player/arbitersports?fb=0&r3f1=&custom=23cfopretraining2

Is there anyway to convince him to lose the absolutely obnoxious background music?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TNofficial]

I think the music is just an NCAA thing because they use the same (or possibly just very similar) music for lacrosse rules videos but I agree.

[texasredleg]

As this Targeting video relates to UIL Football, we, and the UIL, know that we don't have the luxury of replay. So, the UIL enacted a new policy a couple of years ago that allows us to call a foul when we see a strongly suspicious action - that may be targeting - and then we put our collective heads together to see if we can confirm ALL of the elements of targeting. If so, then, yes, that's a targeting foul (with disqualification). If we can't confirm any one (or more) of the elements, then the action is NOT targeting, but we stay with personal foul, as unnecessary roughness, or late hit. If we can confirm that there was:
1) not contact with the crown of the attacker's helmet, and
2) not contact to the head-neck area of a defenseless player, and
3) not late, and
4) not excessive,

then there is no foul at all.
Check out the video, if you can, one way or another.

Your post seems to say that there are only 3 possible outcomes in UIL play:  1) Targeting w/Disqualification; 2) Personal Foul instead of Targeting; and 3) No Foul.  There is also a fourth possibility:  UIL "Non-flagrant" targeting (no disqual). From the current UIL exceptions:

(UIL NOTE: In accordance with Rule 9-1-3 & Rule 9-1-4, when in question as to whether there is a foul for targeting, a foul should be called.  If the foul is flagrant (“contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury”) the player shall be disqualified. If the foul is the player’s first targeting foul of the game, AND the foul is deemed not to be flagrant, the foul does not require disqualification. A second targeting foul by the same player in the same game is automatically classified as flagrant and therefore requires the player to be disqualified.) 

[dammitbobby]

Here's thread from last year that may provide more insight into flagrant/non-flagrant targeting (not going to cut and paste here, it's not a long thread)

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=16090.0

But, you do raise an interesting point:  UIL does seem to define targeting in this instance using the rulebook definition of flagrant, which is very different that the TASO interpretation of what flagrant means in terms of targeting. I've suggested to TASO that they lobby UIL to change their terms to eliminate that confusion (I proposed Targeting Type 1 and Targeting Type 2) but so far I haven't seen/heard of any potential changes coming regarding the verbiage.  I do believe the usage of 'flagrant' here is what causes 85% of the confusion around targeting, when the rulebook definition of flagrant has no applicability to UIL's targeting exception (as I understand it at least).