New Rule - Ejections for Targeting

[InsideTheStripes]

I was also in attendance at the TBFOC. 

To overturn a 9-1-4 ejection, IR is supposed to consider the same to questions:

1. Was the player defenseless by rule?
2. Was there contact to the head or neck area?

If the answer to either is NO, then they can overturn.  There is to be no consideration of intent or degree.  They really do want it to be that simple.  The NCAA is trying to be out in front of taking the head out of football.  They are of the opinion that we won't have a game in 10 years if we're unsuccessful in taking the head out of it.

The mantra at the clinic was VERY simple: 

Was the player defenseless?  Yes. 
Was there (any) contact to the head? Yes. 

He's gone.


Edit:

Under the new penalty, both hits would have resulted in ejections this year.  Both would have been upheld by replay.  The second may have resulted in additional time off if I read the tea leaves correctly.

[TXMike]

Nonsensical. If IR says No to 1 of the 2 questions then they overturn the ejection but the 15 yard penalty stands?  How can that be since either there was no contact to the head or neck area or the player was NOT defenseless.  To paraphrase a childhood TV heroe..."illogical Captain, simply illogical.".

[dvasques]

seems like there is not going to be many cases of over ruling the ejection if you consider these guidelines

If they don't want intent to be consider then the foul name should be changed to "touching the head of a player"

[Rulesman]

...To paraphrase a childhood TV heroe..."illogical Captain, simply illogical.".

Since when has logic been a part of the equation? 

[SanDiegoStryker]

Nonsensical. If IR says No to 1 of the 2 questions then they overturn the ejection but the 15 yard penalty stands?  How can that be since either there was no contact to the head or neck area or the player was NOT defenseless.  To paraphrase a childhood TV heroe..."illogical Captain, simply illogical.".

I do not believe they can ever overturn an ejection but let the yardage penalty stand. I think IR is only checking to make sure he was actually contacted in the head. Austin said something along the lines of "if a player is guilty of a targeting foul, he is always ejected."

[TXMike]

From the latest rule change document from CFO:

For fouls in the first half: Disqualification for the remainder of the game. For fouls in the second half: Disqualification for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next game. If the foul occurs in the second half of the last game of the season, players with remaining eligibility shall serve the suspension during the first game of the following season. The disqualification is subject to review by Instant Replay (Rule 12-3-5-f).

----------------------
This just says the DQ portion is reviewable.  Does not say the 15 yard penalty is also subjetc to review.

And from the same document (IR section)

f.  The player-disqualification portion of the penalty for targeting fouls under 9-1-3 and 9-1-4.  Note that if the disqualification is reversed the 15-yard penalty remains.

---------------------------------------
Can you 'splain that? ? ?

[shoreref]

Because the supervisor said so.

They were all three very adamant that even when in doubt it should be called targeting and the ejection enforced.  I think a big part of that is having IR to help out so I wouldn't be surprised if guidance at the lower levels might be a tad bit different.

Or I could be wrong!

[shoreref]

I do not believe they can ever overturn an ejection but let the yardage penalty stand. I think IR is only checking to make sure he was actually contacted in the head. Austin said something along the lines of "if a player is guilty of a targeting foul, he is always ejected."

Actually they can overturn the ejection.  They cannot rescind the yardage penalty.