Vanderbilt-South Carolina Targeting Call

[zebrastripes]

https://x.com/espn/status/1967034916786327968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1967034916786327968%7Ctwgr%5Ec477c82c7edfb4863b225ac940c9a681a397b9be%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fcollege-football%2Fnews%2Fsouth-carolina-qb-lanorris-sellers-suffered-concussion-against-vanderbilt-uncertain-for-missouri-per-report%2F

Replay created a targeting foul on this hit, minutes after it actually happened. In fact the next play was snapped when officials were buzzed and Shane Beamer was understandably livid. Aside from the time it took replay to decide to look further, can you NCAA guys explain to me why this is a foul? I don’t see any indicator and it’s questionable if the contact is forcible. This looks very similar to the hit in the Texas-Arizona State playoff game that was overturned to no targeting. So why is this hit a foul?

[dammitbobby]

This is 9-1-4 targeting.

It's obvious it's not crown, so 9-1-3 is off the table.

By rule, the QB is considered defenseless immediately after throwing a pass. The indicator is leading with the helmet, forearm, fist, hand, or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area (the 3rd bulleted indicator in 9-1-4 note 1.)

I would say it was forcible enough to ring his bell pretty hard, hard enough he had to leave the game.

[zebrastripes]

I’m not sure how you consider that an indicator. To me his eyes stay up, he sees what he hits and hits the QB with his facemask. The Texas-Arizona State hit (linked below) had more of an indicator IMO and I supported the no-call on that play. I just don’t see it on this one and the fact that replay took five minutes before deciding to buzz is telling.

https://youtu.be/Cy_Mi5-fYDM?feature=shared

[ump_ben]

I'm not seeing it in the SC play but I can understand why they might.  It looks to me like he's pretty vertical and would have to actually be leaning back to avoid this contact.  (He could have ducked his head but then he'd have been leading with it ).

The ASU Texas play was obviously targeting.  I don't see how they look remotely the same to you.  In the ASU play the receiver gets hit by the crown of the helmet or maybe a couple inches off that circle while defenseless.  That should have been an easy call but the situation was too big.

[dammitbobby]

You're saying you don't think think forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player is an indicator?

As the rule is written today, IMO this is targeting.

Defenseless (I think we all agree on that), and the indicator (to me) is forcible contact to head/neck area with his helmet, which is verbatim listed in Note 1 as qualifying as an indicator.

[dammitbobby]

I'm not seeing it in the SC play but I can understand why they might.  It looks to me like he's pretty vertical and would have to actually be leaning back to avoid this contact.  (He could have ducked his head but then he'd have been leading with it ).

The ASU Texas play was obviously targeting.  I don't see how they look remotely the same to you.  In the ASU play the receiver gets hit by the crown of the helmet or maybe a couple inches off that circle while defenseless.  That should have been an easy call but the situation was too big.

Or, he could have gone to the side a few inches and missed his head completely. Then it would almost certainly be shoulder to shoulder, no foul.

And I agree ASU/Texas to me is easy targeting call, under the rule as written and the fact that it's a safety foul (when in doubt...)

[Whodatboy18]

You're saying you don't think think forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player is an indicator?

As the rule is written today, IMO this is targeting.

Defenseless (I think we all agree on that), and the indicator (to me) is forcible contact to head/neck area with his helmet, which is verbatim listed in Note 1 as qualifying as an indicator.

That is not an indicator, that its the other two elements of targeting. Forcible contact is not enough to be an indicator, it requires an attack or taking aim.

Targeting requires all three elements to be present/confirmed. Considering 9-1-4 and a defenseless player:
1. Forcible contact
2. Contact to the head or neck area
3. An Indicator; which requires taking aim and attacking. This includes (Launch, Thrust, Lowering the head, Leading with the head or body parts.)

I don't see the defender display any of those indicators to attack or take aim at the quarterbacks head/neck. The contact is due to him running through the quarterback and his body position does not alter as he approaches to "indicate" he is attacking. The contact to the head is forcible but incidental as part of the tackle.

This is a clear roughing the passer call due to the high contact to a defenseless player, but don't see the targeting.

[dammitbobby]

OK, I should have had a sentence clause that added ' leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, first, etc. to attack with forcible contact. We're talking semantics here.

The way I see it here, the forcible contact aspect is satisfied by his speed and kinetic energy of the contact (look at how the QB's head snaps in reaction to the contact.) He didn't

I'd argue that the helmet-to-helmet contact of a defender barreling at a defenseless player, who makes no effort to not hit him in the head or neck area, with that contact being the first to hit the defenseless player, satisfies the leading requirement.

[Etref]

Seeing the video, I have nothing!

[zebrastripes]

Shaw has said in countless training videos that they want defenders to “see what they hit,” which in my judgment clearly happens on this play and the Texas-ASU play. If the rules committee wanted this play to be a foul, in my opinion they should go back to the original version of the rule which made clear that when in doubt, it’s a foul and there wasn’t any of the verbiage about there needing to be an indicator.

Now that the rule is that you have to confirm all aspects including an indicator, I just don’t see a foul here. Particularly not one created by replay five minutes after it happened and taking away a potential big play from the offense (which is why the SC coach was rightfully HACKED).

[Stinterp]

+1

[dammitbobby]

Shaw has said in countless training videos that they want defenders to “see what they hit,” which in my judgment clearly happens on this play and the Texas-ASU play. If the rules committee wanted this play to be a foul, in my opinion they should go back to the original version of the rule which made clear that when in doubt, it’s a foul and there wasn’t any of the verbiage about there needing to be an indicator.

Now that the rule is that you have to confirm all aspects including an indicator, I just don’t see a foul here. Particularly not one created by replay five minutes after it happened and taking away a potential big play from the offense (which is why the SC coach was rightfully HACKED).

Definitely agree with bolded above. 

As for Shaw's comments, I always felt, even before I was an official, that 'see what you hit' was to make sure you didn't have your chin on your chest when making contact and compressing your spine, not that it was a way to minimize the likelihood of a targeting call.

[John B]

Blonde question from Australia. We have recently had extensive discussion of what is an indicator of “forcible”. I note you all use that term as a given, but what dies it mean to you all?
We are looking for clear indicators that we can provide our newer officials for what a “forcible” hit may look like. Forgive if that sounds like an obvious answer for you all.
We also find the term “catastrophic”, unusual in our sporting experience.

[ElvisLives]

If the goal of the targeting rules are - in the interest of player safety - to 1) eliminate avoidable contact to the head-neck area of opponents who can’t protect themselves from such contact (9-1-4), and 2) eliminate the deliberate use of the helmet to inflict injury on opponents (9-1-3), then this is a good targeting call. Yes, you have to look carefully, but, all of the elements are there. The contact is undeniably to the head of the victim. The victim is a defenseless player. The contact is unquestionably forcible. And, there IS an indicator, albeit a bit subtle. I read all of the comments before I watched the video, so I was expecting something far more incidental than what I saw in the real-time-speed replay. After the pass had clearly been released, I saw the defender continue to move forward with his forehead aimed, and leading, directly at the head of the defenseless player. He could easily have moved his head to his left side (along with the arm with which he was attempting to block the pass) to avoid contact to the passer’s head. Instead, he continued to lead with his head - the indicator - directly into the head of the passer. Oh yeah. He saw what he hit, all right. He took his eyes straight to the eyes of the passer, with no effort to avoid contact to the passer’s head. And the contact was definitely forcible.
As to why it took so long for replay to stop the game, none of us were in the booth, so we can’t authoritatively say. But, as late as the first replay was in this video, the RO probably wasn’t aware of the possibility of targeting before then, at the earliest. I would guess the RO wanted to see a different angle to get a corroborating view before he stopped the game. By then, the ball was ready for play for the next down, and he waited until the absolute last instant to call for the review. Just because the snapper moved the ball, doesn’t mean the ball was officially snapped before the stoppage. It doesn’t look great, but, it happens. And, considering the consequences of a targeting foul, during the review I’m sure the RO wanted to see every possible view - maybe several times - to be sure one of those views didn’t show something to pull him off of the call.
Somebody said “5 minutes.” The video presented doesn’t extend through until the next snap. Once into review, did TV take a break? That happens. Maybe the review didn’t take more than 2 minutes, but TV didn’t come back for the announcement for a while. Add the time while they tended to the victim and got him off the field, yeah that might have been 3, 4, 5 minutes, in total. B, B, B. (You know what that means.) Had it not been called, they’d have screamed that a targeting foul should have been called.