Targeting and Crown-of-Helmet Guidelines

[Rulesman]

From CFO posting today (3/15/13):

INTRODUCTION

With the 2013 rule change that makes ejection from the game a part of the penalty for targeting fouls coaches, players and officials need to have a clear understanding of Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. It is very important to understand that these fouls have not changed from previous years, and officials should officiate these plays as in the past. The characterization of defenseless players has been expanded (see below), but otherwise these rules for the fouls remain as they have been. It is the penalty that has changed.

These guidelines are intended to assist everyone involved in the game to understand these rules, which are so important in protecting the safety of the student-athlete.

RULES

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.

KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.

Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the
forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.

Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.

Examples (Rule 2-27-14):

 A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
 A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and
has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
 A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the
return.
 A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
 A player on the ground.
 A player obviously out of the play.
 A player who receives a blind-side block.
 A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
 A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

KEY INDICATORS

Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:

 Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward
and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area

 A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with
contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still
on the ground

 Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact
at the head or neck area

 Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown
of the helmet

These indicate less risk of a foul:

 Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above
the shoulders

 Wrap-up tackle

 Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact

 Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the
players changing position during the course of play

HINTS FOR PLAYERS

 Don’t lead with your head

 Lower your target--don’t go for the head or neck area with anything

 Tackle: Heads-up and wrap-up

[TXMike]

This is great info and should help on the call but the one thing that is still not addressed....

If ejection is part of the mandatory penalty enforcement but the ejection can be overturned by replay, then how can the rest of the enforcement still be applied?  By overturning, isn't IR saying there was no foul?

[williebe]

 TxMike according to Jim Blackwood the 15 yd will still be enforced.

[TXMike]

I understand that part.  What I don't understand is how you can have ANY penalty if you are saying IR can overturn part of the penalty.  If IR overturns part of the penalty aren't they saying there was no foul and if there was no foul, how can there be a 15 yard penalty?  If there was language that said "flagrant offenders will be ejected" then I can see IR stepping in to say "it was not flagrant."  But that is not how it is written.

[Magician]

I understand that part.  What I don't understand is how you can have ANY penalty if you are saying IR can overturn part of the penalty.  If IR overturns part of the penalty aren't they saying there was no foul and if there was no foul, how can there be a 15 yard penalty?  If there was language that said "flagrant offenders will be ejected" then I can see IR stepping in to say "it was not flagrant."  But that is not how it is written.

This is the part I'm curious to see play out or get clarified.

[Aussie-Zebra]

Targeting or & disqualification or no foul ?

http://youtu.be/aAG-MLrfQPo

Point to ponder
Was the defender initiating contact to the head/neck with his helmet/shoulder or did the receivers movement downward put him in a precarious position ?

[Harry]

Targeting or & disqualification or no foul ?

http://youtu.be/aAG-MLrfQPo

Point to ponder
Was the defender initiating contact to the head/neck with his helmet/shoulder or did the receivers movement downward put him in a precarious position ?

I was at a clinic recently where a lot of the well known coordinators discussed this.  The bottom line was "when in doubt, throw them out."  That play would be a foul plus DQ based on what they were saying.

[zebra99]

I understand that part.  What I don't understand is how you can have ANY penalty if you are saying IR can overturn part of the penalty.  If IR overturns part of the penalty aren't they saying there was no foul and if there was no foul, how can there be a 15 yard penalty?  If there was language that said "flagrant offenders will be ejected" then I can see IR stepping in to say "it was not flagrant."  But that is not how it is written.

TX - you make a good point about using "flagrant" type language.  The way I understand it is if we rule "targeting" then it's automatic ejection by us subject to IR oversight of the ejection part only.  If IR nullifies the ejection, it's still a foul for illegal helmet contact of some kind so the yardage/auto 1st if defense, stands.

The "key element" described as  "to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." can boost a "normal" high hit into a targeting/ejection scenario.

I agree the rule book language isn't perfect but we've been clearly told that there are now two degrees of illegal helmet/high hit type fouls - one with ejection and one without.

[TXMike]

That phrase "2 degrees of targeting" was thrown around quite a bit at the CFO West clinic this past weekend.  And that is a good way to think about it.  The issue I have is that there have always been 2 degrees of targeting, flagrant and non-flagrant.  1 carried an ejection, 1 did not.  What is different now is that all targeting is presumed flagrant unless and until IR says it was not.  The way this is going to be announced is helpful, i.e. After further review the disqualification portion of the penalty is overturned but the 15 yard penalty remains.    This is not saying IR determined there is NO foul, just that they determined there was no flagrant foul. (Of course that does not mean there truly was any foul at all.  We will leave that to the talking heads and  we discussion forum "experts" in the following weeks after the game.)

We were also told the Rules Committtee was effectively ordered to make the penalty more severe by the NCAA suits.  Understanding that pressure I can see how they may have not been as concerned about the language as they were about finding something that would satisfy the suits while also being something coaches could live with.   

I hope everyone has the chance to see and hear all the video that is available of targeting and can hear someone describe the fine points of what to look for when making the call.  I heard some very good advice that should help me make the decision to flag or not.

[zebra99]

That phrase "2 degrees of targeting" was thrown around quite a bit at the CFO West clinic this past weekend.  And that is a good way to think about it.  The issue I have is that there have always been 2 degrees of targeting, flagrant and non-flagrant.  1 carried an ejection, 1 did not.  What is different now is that all targeting is presumed flagrant unless and until IR says it was not.  The way this is going to be announced is helpful, i.e. After further review the disqualification portion of the penalty is overturned but the 15 yard penalty remains.    This is not saying IR determined there is NO foul, just that they determined there was no flagrant foul. (Of course that does not mean there truly was any foul at all.  We will leave that to the talking heads and  we discussion forum "experts" in the following weeks after the game.)

We were also told the Rules Committtee was effectively ordered to make the penalty more severe by the NCAA suits.  Understanding that pressure I can see how they may have not been as concerned about the language as they were about finding something that would satisfy the suits while also being something coaches could live with.   

I hope everyone has the chance to see and hear all the video that is available of targeting and can hear someone describe the fine points of what to look for when making the call.  I heard some very good advice that should help me make the decision to flag or not.

good summary  -  how about this?  "After further review, #56 may remain in the game, however the 15 yard penalty and automatic first down will be enforced."

[ref6983]

At present, IR will be making no determination whether the action is flagrant or not.

In the case of 9-1-3, IR will reverse the DQ if there is indisputable evidence that the defender did not initiate contact with the crown of his helmet.

In the case of 9-1-4, IR will reverse the DQ if there is indisputable evidence that there was no contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

No matter what replays show, the 15 yard penalty will remain.

There are no degrees of illegal contact to the head. Anyone who is saying otherwise is wrong. If there is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player using the helmet, shoulder, elbow, forearm, or hand other than incidental contact while playing the ball, then it is a targeting foul that requires DQ. Under no circumstances can an official call a foul for an illegal hit to the head of a defenseless player and it not be a targeting foul with DQ.

[TXMike]

Not sure that is how you want to 'splain it to the 4th estate.  (Unless you have a good argument as to why the 15 yards and auto 1st down are remaining)

[ref6983]

Because, as of now, that is the rule. It's the only explanation that we've got. The rules makers have to take it from there.

[zebra99]

At present, IR will be making no determination whether the action is flagrant or not.

In the case of 9-1-3, IR will reverse the DQ if there is indisputable evidence that the defender did not initiate contact with the crown of his helmet.

In the case of 9-1-4, IR will reverse the DQ if there is indisputable evidence that there was no contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

No matter what replays show, the 15 yard penalty will remain.

There are no degrees of illegal contact to the head. Anyone who is saying otherwise is wrong. If there is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player using the helmet, shoulder, elbow, forearm, or hand other than incidental contact while playing the ball, then it is a targeting foul that requires DQ. Under no circumstances can an official call a foul for an illegal hit to the head of a defenseless player and it not be a targeting foul with DQ.

well - be careful about making absolute statements such as "Anyone who is saying otherwise is wrong." 

But I like the idea of not thinking about "degrees."  I guess it boils down to this - we think it's a timely but illegal high hit to a defenseless player meeting the criteria so we call targeting and eject the player.  IR reviews and notes that there was no contact whatsoever above the shoulders, it was to the upper arm, so they take away the ejection.  The 15 yard/auto first down penalty stands just like any other "missed" or incorrect non-reviewable call.

[dvasques]

so we are now reviewing a penalty call by the officials in game, telling everybody they are wrong and saying we won't completely fix the mistake?

[zebra99]

so we are now reviewing a penalty call by the officials in game, telling everybody they are wrong and saying we won't completely fix the mistake?

I think it's that the DQ component is so severe that it should be "fixed' if we are wrong, but they don't won't to take it to another level and start reviewing the "nature/force/timing" of the contact when a foul is called.

Then there's the combi foul situation where we call targeting which turns out not to be there but it was a late hit, or a hit against a player obviously out of the play, or a hit out of bounds, etc.

It is hard to get our heads around this, though.

[dvasques]

I understand the whole point of the rule and the possibility to review

But it's gonna be hard to explain, after a review, why is it that we called the penalty and why half of the enforcement is being upheld while the other half isn't

If intent has nothing to do with this ruling and reviewing, and the text says it is a foul, 15 yds and DQ is: 1: there is a hit to the head; and 2: the player hit was defenseless. Then why can you say you called a foul on the field and enforced the penalty because you saw 1 and 2 happened. Then replay looked at it and saw that either 1 or 2 did NOT happen, so they are overuling HALF the penalty

I don't know... it's kinda like looking at DPI and deciding to enforce only the distance penalty but not the auto 1st, or take the loss of down out of a penalty because review saw it wasn't really a foul

something has to be done text wise in order to make this ruling and reviewing something that makes sense

I know... I'm asking for too much when I want things to make sense

[dvasques]

bunch of questions coming up here in Brasil about 9-1-3 and 9-14
Mainly, it's beeing hard to explain the difference between the two of them. People here seem to mix one with the other and create a great mess.

But one that's been brought up to me today is 9-1-3 then means the ball carrier cannot lower his head and lead with the crown into a tackler, right?

I guess nobody had payed attention to this rule down here until the NFL outruled this action and they are all screaming here

[TXMike]

That confusion exists here as well.  9-1-3 makes it illegal for a player to use the crown of his helmet to hit ANYWHERE on an opponent's body.9-1-4 makes it illegal for a player to use most all parts of his body to target an opponent in the head or neck area.  It is possible for a player to violate both rules, i.e. using his helmet to target an opponent's head.  It is NOT a foul to use your body to target the head or neck area of a "non defenseless player" (whatever that is).  Example:  The ball carrier is not defenseless.  You put a shoulder into his helmet and that is not a foul.

[dvasques]

would it be a foul to put you facemask or the side of your helmet into a ball carrier's helmet? I'd say no according to what I read but I might as well just ask you guys too...

And so, 9-1-3 does forbid the ball carrier to lower his head and hit a tackler with the top of his helmet then

[Andrew McCarthy]

9-1-3 does forbid the ball carrier to lower his head and hit a tackler with the top of his helmet then

A strict reading of the rule does lead to this conclusion, along with the new NFL rule along these lines that got a lot of media attention which does specifically prohibit this act.

However, I was at a recent clinic where a D-I supervisor was specifically asked if this was a foul and he said it is not and should not be flagged.  He speculated that 2 years from now it may be but right now the intent is that this is legal.  He was specifically asked about the NFL plays that were shown on film, intended to be fouls under their new rule, and said they were legal in the NCAA.

Hopefully there is guidance from the CFO on this.  And as always, do what your supervisor says.

[dvasques]

I don't have a supervisor down here so that's why I'm trying to gather as much info about this as possible so I can be the supervisor here...

[Rulesman]

A strict reading of the rule does lead to this conclusion, along with the new NFL rule along these lines that got a lot of media attention which does specifically prohibit this act.

However, I was at a recent clinic where a D-I supervisor was specifically asked if this was a foul and he said it is not and should not be flagged.  He speculated that 2 years from now it may be but right now the intent is that this is legal.  He was specifically asked about the NFL plays that were shown on film, intended to be fouls under their new rule, and said they were legal in the NCAA.

Hopefully there is guidance from the CFO on this.  And as always, do what your supervisor says.

FWIW, this is a foul in Federation in 2013.

[dvasques]

Back to the defenseless quarterback at any time during a change of posession

Direct snap to another back who's not the team's franchise. He gets the snap, passes the ball and is intercepted

Who is to be protected by the definition of defenseless? The team's franchise who didn't even participate in the play or the guy who acted as the quarterback during that one play?

[dvasques]

Targeting exemple from Brasil

http://youtu.be/XhNwB5NMAP0