Charles
Guest
Officially Speaking: Targeting in Week 1
Charles via our good friends at Buckeye Battle Cry
Visit their fantastic blog and read the full article (and so much more) here
Targeting fouls inevitably are some of the most controversial calls made or not made each college football season. The fact that they are one of the few fouls that can lead to a player being ejected makes the stakes very high on them which tends to create very partisan feelings about them depending if your team was the victim or the perpetrator. The season is only a week old and we have already seen controversial targeting calls/non-calls in the Iowa vs Miami (OH), Tennessee vs Appalachian State, and Notre Dame vs Texas games.
Before we take a look at those plays, let’s see what the rules actually say regarding targeting. There are two rules that cover targeting.
Rule 9-1-3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
Rule 9-1-4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, first, elbow, or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
Both of these rules at least one indicator of targeting which are defined as:
“Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Launch – a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
Leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Many people think that launching is a requirement for targeting to be called but as can be clearly seen, you can still be called for targeting even if both feet are on the ground. While contact with the crown of the helmet can be targeting in all cases, you can also have targeting when the contact is by the shoulder, arm, or hand if it is to the head or neck of a defenseless opponent. By rule, a defenseless player is
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position toreceive a backward 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, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
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
A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.
Now that we have gone over the rules related to targeting, lets take a look at the plays in question. We’ll start with the Iowa vs Miami (OH) game.
We see Iowa player #43 come in and make contact to the helmet of Miami #22; since the Iowa player made the contact with the top of his helmet, we have a situation where rule 9-1-3 may apply. Now we need to see one of the indicators of targeting is present. While the Iowa player did not launch or thrust upward from a crouch, he does lead with his helmet and makes forcible contact with the head of the opponent. Thus, we have an indicator of targeting and contact made with the crown of the helmet, equaling a targeting foul. The officials got this one right by calling targeting and ejecting the Iowa player.
Up next we go to the Tennessee vs Appalachian State game and a possible targeting on a punt return.
We see Tennessee #21 come in and hit Appalachian State player #16 just as the Appalachian State player had caught the punt. The contact is made by the crown of the Tennessee player’s helmet to the head of the Appalachian State player. Since the Appalachian State player had just completed a catch but had not had time to protect himself or become a runner, note how the receiver hadn’t yet raised his head to look up after the catch, he is considered and defenseless player and rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 may possibly apply. We now need an indicator of targeting and that is easy to find as the Tennessee player is clearly leading with his head and shoulders and makes contact to the helmet, he also lowers his head just before attacking. Thus, by both rule 9-1-3 and rule 9-1-4 we have targeting. Once again the officials got this one correct.
Our final play came from the thrilling Texas vs Notre Dame game and has generated lots of talk and controversy.
gameontech: Torii Hunter Jr. takes a hard hit ABC College Football: Notre Dame at Texas https://t.co/vtwt6sR5ba pic.twitter.com/njnjTOaOqK
— FanSportsClips (@FanSportsClips) September 5, 2016
Notre Dame #16 has just caught the ball and has just returned to the ground but has not had time to protect himself or become a ball carrier, thus he is a defenseless player. Texas #4 comes in and makes contact with the Notre Dame player’s head and neck. Thus, we have a situation where rule 9-1-4 may apply. The Texas player clearly leads with his helmet and shoulders and makes contact to the head and neck area, giving a clear indicator of targeting. In the video it is not clear if the Texas player makes contact with his helmet or shoulder, it seems like it was his shoulder, but since the Notre Dame receiver is classified as a defenseless player, rule 9-1-4 classifies contact to his head and neck area by an opposing player’s helmet, shoulder, or arm as targeting. Thus, this is targeting. As most of you know, the officials on the field did not throw a flag on this play which is understandable due to the quick nature of the play and the possibility that they did not get a good look at it. However, a rules change this year allows the replay official to create a target penalty on egregious plays where the foul was not called on the field. As shown in the above video, there were replay angles that gave a clear look at the play and which clearly showed that it was targeting. Considering the fact that the game was paused for a long time due to an injury to the receiver, the replay official had plenty of time to look at this play and should have ruled it targeting. The officials definitely got this one wrong.
The final thing to note when trying to determine whether a play should be called targeting is the last line in both of the applicable rules “when in question, it is a foul.” This pretty much means that if reasonable, knowledgeable, unbiased people can get into a reasonable discussion/debate about the play, it probably should be ruled as targeting.
As the comments sections on the above videos show, you will never get everyone to agree that a targeting call was correct or not. Part of it of course is due to fans of one team or the other but part of it is also due to many people longing for the days before the rule when violent hits were celebrated. Now that we know about the dangers of concussions and blows to the head, those days are gone and the NCAA is doing what it can to make the game safer for not only the health of the current players but the future of the sport itself.
The post Officially Speaking: Targeting in Week 1 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
Targeting fouls inevitably are some of the most controversial calls made or not made each college football season. The fact that they are one of the few fouls that can lead to a player being ejected makes the stakes very high on them which tends to create very partisan feelings about them depending if your team was the victim or the perpetrator. The season is only a week old and we have already seen controversial targeting calls/non-calls in the Iowa vs Miami (OH), Tennessee vs Appalachian State, and Notre Dame vs Texas games.
Before we take a look at those plays, let’s see what the rules actually say regarding targeting. There are two rules that cover targeting.
Rule 9-1-3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
Rule 9-1-4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, first, elbow, or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
Both of these rules at least one indicator of targeting which are defined as:
“Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Launch – a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
Leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Many people think that launching is a requirement for targeting to be called but as can be clearly seen, you can still be called for targeting even if both feet are on the ground. While contact with the crown of the helmet can be targeting in all cases, you can also have targeting when the contact is by the shoulder, arm, or hand if it is to the head or neck of a defenseless opponent. By rule, a defenseless player is
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position toreceive a backward 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, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
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
A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.
Now that we have gone over the rules related to targeting, lets take a look at the plays in question. We’ll start with the Iowa vs Miami (OH) game.
We see Iowa player #43 come in and make contact to the helmet of Miami #22; since the Iowa player made the contact with the top of his helmet, we have a situation where rule 9-1-3 may apply. Now we need to see one of the indicators of targeting is present. While the Iowa player did not launch or thrust upward from a crouch, he does lead with his helmet and makes forcible contact with the head of the opponent. Thus, we have an indicator of targeting and contact made with the crown of the helmet, equaling a targeting foul. The officials got this one right by calling targeting and ejecting the Iowa player.
Up next we go to the Tennessee vs Appalachian State game and a possible targeting on a punt return.
We see Tennessee #21 come in and hit Appalachian State player #16 just as the Appalachian State player had caught the punt. The contact is made by the crown of the Tennessee player’s helmet to the head of the Appalachian State player. Since the Appalachian State player had just completed a catch but had not had time to protect himself or become a runner, note how the receiver hadn’t yet raised his head to look up after the catch, he is considered and defenseless player and rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 may possibly apply. We now need an indicator of targeting and that is easy to find as the Tennessee player is clearly leading with his head and shoulders and makes contact to the helmet, he also lowers his head just before attacking. Thus, by both rule 9-1-3 and rule 9-1-4 we have targeting. Once again the officials got this one correct.
Our final play came from the thrilling Texas vs Notre Dame game and has generated lots of talk and controversy.
gameontech: Torii Hunter Jr. takes a hard hit ABC College Football: Notre Dame at Texas https://t.co/vtwt6sR5ba pic.twitter.com/njnjTOaOqK
— FanSportsClips (@FanSportsClips) September 5, 2016
Notre Dame #16 has just caught the ball and has just returned to the ground but has not had time to protect himself or become a ball carrier, thus he is a defenseless player. Texas #4 comes in and makes contact with the Notre Dame player’s head and neck. Thus, we have a situation where rule 9-1-4 may apply. The Texas player clearly leads with his helmet and shoulders and makes contact to the head and neck area, giving a clear indicator of targeting. In the video it is not clear if the Texas player makes contact with his helmet or shoulder, it seems like it was his shoulder, but since the Notre Dame receiver is classified as a defenseless player, rule 9-1-4 classifies contact to his head and neck area by an opposing player’s helmet, shoulder, or arm as targeting. Thus, this is targeting. As most of you know, the officials on the field did not throw a flag on this play which is understandable due to the quick nature of the play and the possibility that they did not get a good look at it. However, a rules change this year allows the replay official to create a target penalty on egregious plays where the foul was not called on the field. As shown in the above video, there were replay angles that gave a clear look at the play and which clearly showed that it was targeting. Considering the fact that the game was paused for a long time due to an injury to the receiver, the replay official had plenty of time to look at this play and should have ruled it targeting. The officials definitely got this one wrong.
The final thing to note when trying to determine whether a play should be called targeting is the last line in both of the applicable rules “when in question, it is a foul.” This pretty much means that if reasonable, knowledgeable, unbiased people can get into a reasonable discussion/debate about the play, it probably should be ruled as targeting.
As the comments sections on the above videos show, you will never get everyone to agree that a targeting call was correct or not. Part of it of course is due to fans of one team or the other but part of it is also due to many people longing for the days before the rule when violent hits were celebrated. Now that we know about the dangers of concussions and blows to the head, those days are gone and the NCAA is doing what it can to make the game safer for not only the health of the current players but the future of the sport itself.
The post Officially Speaking: Targeting in Week 1 appeared first on The Buckeye Battle Cry: Ohio State News and Commentary.
Continue reading...