Charles
Guest
Officially Speaking: Roughing and Targeting
Charles via our good friends at Buckeye Battle Cry
Visit their fantastic blog and read the full article (and so much more) here
This week’s edition of officially speaking features three plays that cover a couple different rules. As always, our group of high school and college officials weigh in on the plays and the applicable rules as well as the mechanics of officiating.
Roughing the Kicker
First up is a play from the Oregon State at Michigan game involving a roughing the kicker penalty; the play also has the nice bonus of letting us watch Jim Harbaugh throw a tantrum on the sideline.
Scott: In the scUM play, a roughing the kicker penalty was called incorrectly.
Rule 2-34-1 states: The tackle box is the rectangular area enclosed by the neutral zone, the two lines parallel to the sidelines five yards from the snapper, and Team A’s end line.
In this case, the punter was outside of this box although I would not argue that he was clearly outside the box.
Rule 9.1.16.a.4 states: The kicker’s protection under this rule ends (a) when he has had a reasonable time to regain his balance (A.R. 9.1.16.IV); or (b) when he carries the ball outside the tackle box (Rule 2-34) before kicking.
From an officiating philosophy perspective we obviously error on the side of safety which would mean we endeavor to protect the kicker as much as possible. That said. one of the hazards of the rugby punt is that the punters play games with being in and out of the box, so generally more leeway is given on close plays as long as the action is not overly rough (judgement). As such, I believe the officials missed this call.
WVa: The issue with the TTUN play is an application of a rule was missed. It appears that he does bobble the bad snap but it never hits the ground in his efforts to receive it. He then make an effort to avoid the rush to get the football off. I understand the college rule around being outside of the tackle box but I would think there is an exception to these types of plays. If I remember right, that rule was put in because of all of the rugby style kickers. In high school, the kicker is a kicker is a kicker no matter where he is.
Charles: I agree with Scott and WVa, the kicker’s protection ends when he carries the ball outside the tackle box. The ‘carries the ball’ part is important as he is still protected if a bad snap causes the ball to go out of the tackle box where the punter recovers it. There is a bad snap in this case but the punter clearly controls the ball and carries it outside the tackle box. He doesn’t get too far outside of it but that doesn’t matter, his protection is over and the officials missed the call on this one. As a note, the Big Ten did admit that this was a mistake and apologized for it.
Targeting
Our other two plays come from the Troy at Wisconsin game and concern players being ejected for targeting. Take a look at the two plays here and then take a look at our discussion.
Scott: On the UW plays, both provide excellent examples of the text book definition and philosophy for officials as it relates to targeting. On the first play,
Rule 9.1.3 states: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9.1.3.I).
Hits with the crown of the helmet, which is the leading indicator in this play- the dip of his head and upward thrust of the tackle to the chin, against a QB are just simply illegal. Players need to both lower their target zone AND wrap tackle to avoid these plays.
On the second situation,
Rule 9.1.4 states: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9.1.4.I-VI).
In this play, the defender clearly drives his forearm directly through the head of the receiver as he is coming to the ground. In both cases, the officials got these correct. The video’s also show the new procedure for how targeting and the subsequent DQ of a player are handled- all DQs must be verified by Instant Replay before a player number is announced. This has been a good change in game procedure.
WVa: The two ejections get you to thinking about how far are they willing to go to protect the hitter and the hittee? In both plays the defender did lower their helmets to initiate contact, but in neither case did they target because that contact has to be shoulders and above. I think they blew the intent of the calls but went with targeting to get the automatic ejections. The trouble here is I believe in both plays it is simply spearing by them and by rule is not an ejectable offense currently.
Charles: I agree with Scott on the first play, rule 9.1.3 applies; targeting does not have to involve contact with the shoulders and above, though that is one of the indicators of targeting. Other indicators of targeting include lowering the head to attack with the crown of the helmet, which the Wisconsin player clearly does.
Scott is also right about the second play. A receiver who has just made a catch and who hasn’t had time to protect himself yet is by rule a defenseless player and the Wisconsin defender does use his forearm to make contact with the receiver’s head. The announcers point out that the receiver lowered himself into position for the contact to his head but the rules do not require the defenseless player to do anything to avoid the contact, the burden is placed solely on the defender. I think the officials got both of these plays and the resulting ejections correct. Remember, the other important caveat to the targeting rules is “when in doubt, it is a foul” and both plays at least meet that threshold.
The post Officially Speaking: Roughing and Targeting appeared first on The Buckeye Battle Cry: Ohio State News and Commentary.
Continue reading...
Charles via our good friends at Buckeye Battle Cry
Visit their fantastic blog and read the full article (and so much more) here
This week’s edition of officially speaking features three plays that cover a couple different rules. As always, our group of high school and college officials weigh in on the plays and the applicable rules as well as the mechanics of officiating.
Roughing the Kicker
First up is a play from the Oregon State at Michigan game involving a roughing the kicker penalty; the play also has the nice bonus of letting us watch Jim Harbaugh throw a tantrum on the sideline.
Scott: In the scUM play, a roughing the kicker penalty was called incorrectly.
Rule 2-34-1 states: The tackle box is the rectangular area enclosed by the neutral zone, the two lines parallel to the sidelines five yards from the snapper, and Team A’s end line.
In this case, the punter was outside of this box although I would not argue that he was clearly outside the box.
Rule 9.1.16.a.4 states: The kicker’s protection under this rule ends (a) when he has had a reasonable time to regain his balance (A.R. 9.1.16.IV); or (b) when he carries the ball outside the tackle box (Rule 2-34) before kicking.
From an officiating philosophy perspective we obviously error on the side of safety which would mean we endeavor to protect the kicker as much as possible. That said. one of the hazards of the rugby punt is that the punters play games with being in and out of the box, so generally more leeway is given on close plays as long as the action is not overly rough (judgement). As such, I believe the officials missed this call.
WVa: The issue with the TTUN play is an application of a rule was missed. It appears that he does bobble the bad snap but it never hits the ground in his efforts to receive it. He then make an effort to avoid the rush to get the football off. I understand the college rule around being outside of the tackle box but I would think there is an exception to these types of plays. If I remember right, that rule was put in because of all of the rugby style kickers. In high school, the kicker is a kicker is a kicker no matter where he is.
Charles: I agree with Scott and WVa, the kicker’s protection ends when he carries the ball outside the tackle box. The ‘carries the ball’ part is important as he is still protected if a bad snap causes the ball to go out of the tackle box where the punter recovers it. There is a bad snap in this case but the punter clearly controls the ball and carries it outside the tackle box. He doesn’t get too far outside of it but that doesn’t matter, his protection is over and the officials missed the call on this one. As a note, the Big Ten did admit that this was a mistake and apologized for it.
Targeting
Our other two plays come from the Troy at Wisconsin game and concern players being ejected for targeting. Take a look at the two plays here and then take a look at our discussion.
Scott: On the UW plays, both provide excellent examples of the text book definition and philosophy for officials as it relates to targeting. On the first play,
Rule 9.1.3 states: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9.1.3.I).
Hits with the crown of the helmet, which is the leading indicator in this play- the dip of his head and upward thrust of the tackle to the chin, against a QB are just simply illegal. Players need to both lower their target zone AND wrap tackle to avoid these plays.
On the second situation,
Rule 9.1.4 states: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9.1.4.I-VI).
In this play, the defender clearly drives his forearm directly through the head of the receiver as he is coming to the ground. In both cases, the officials got these correct. The video’s also show the new procedure for how targeting and the subsequent DQ of a player are handled- all DQs must be verified by Instant Replay before a player number is announced. This has been a good change in game procedure.
WVa: The two ejections get you to thinking about how far are they willing to go to protect the hitter and the hittee? In both plays the defender did lower their helmets to initiate contact, but in neither case did they target because that contact has to be shoulders and above. I think they blew the intent of the calls but went with targeting to get the automatic ejections. The trouble here is I believe in both plays it is simply spearing by them and by rule is not an ejectable offense currently.
Charles: I agree with Scott on the first play, rule 9.1.3 applies; targeting does not have to involve contact with the shoulders and above, though that is one of the indicators of targeting. Other indicators of targeting include lowering the head to attack with the crown of the helmet, which the Wisconsin player clearly does.
Scott is also right about the second play. A receiver who has just made a catch and who hasn’t had time to protect himself yet is by rule a defenseless player and the Wisconsin defender does use his forearm to make contact with the receiver’s head. The announcers point out that the receiver lowered himself into position for the contact to his head but the rules do not require the defenseless player to do anything to avoid the contact, the burden is placed solely on the defender. I think the officials got both of these plays and the resulting ejections correct. Remember, the other important caveat to the targeting rules is “when in doubt, it is a foul” and both plays at least meet that threshold.
The post Officially Speaking: Roughing and Targeting appeared first on The Buckeye Battle Cry: Ohio State News and Commentary.
Continue reading...