Targeting Calls

Donate To GopherHole

scools12 said:
The hit on Leidner when he was sliding was not late and not helmet to helmet
Click to expand...

It was most definitely late. Probably half a second more late than the Celestin hit. But no helmet to helmet. Should have still been a penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Watched on BTN.

1. Poock. As Spoofin said, this was a stupid, late, dirty hit and was targeting. Even without the targeting rule, I would be ok with 15 yards and an expulsion.
2. Celestin. Was targeting but man, if this is where the bar is, look for lots of people to get ejected this year. I think it should be egregious for hits on a QB sliding. The D player is in a bad place.
3. Deevers. Similar to Celestin but a reminder what a complete joke the tOSU non-call was last year.

I thought the referees were fine last night. Gophers looked very sloppy and undisciplined.
 

Sorry if been answered but are they suspended next week (first half/full game) too?
 




SJUgopher said:
Not dumb. If you want these hits taken out of the game, take the players out that do them.
Click to expand...

There is helmet to helmet contact in every play in every single game. If you want to take those players out of the game, you'd need to eject every single defensive player in the country.
 

I thought the first call was legitimate but the other two were questionable at best. The missed pass interference call when Stille was hurt was far more egregious.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Have you ever watched rugby?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I have heard arguments about removing the face mask from the helmet would eliminate most of the tacklers leading with the head. I'm sure it would never happen but would be quite an interesting experiment. [emoji2]
SJUgopher said:
Not dumb. If you want these hits taken out of the game, take the players out that do them.
Click to expand...
 



The game is becoming basketball on grass (or already has been and is becoming more so), and that doesn't favor Minnesota OT the big ten.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Watched on BTN.

1. Poock. As Spoofin said, this was a stupid, late, dirty hit and was targeting. Even without the targeting rule, I would be ok with 15 yards and an expulsion.
2. Celestin. Was targeting but man, if this is where the bar is, look for lots of people to get ejected this year. I think it should be egregious for hits on a QB sliding. The D player is in a bad place.
3. Deevers. Similar to Celestin but a reminder what a complete joke the tOSU non-call was last year.

I thought the referees were fine last night. Gophers looked very sloppy and undisciplined.
Click to expand...

I believe Celestin's was due to new rule change this year for QBs in the act of sliding...other two calls were not because of any new rule changes.

I'm more pissed about the safety and the muffed punt. Those directly accounted for a 9-point swing. Without them, Gophs easily cover the spread and win comfortably.
 


PMWinSTP said:
Even Poock? Thought it was just the last two because it happened in the second half.
Click to expand...

Poock doesn't sit next week to start. His occurred in 1st half.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 




PMWinSTP said:
Even Poock? Thought it was just the last two because it happened in the second half.
Click to expand...

You're right. My bad. "Players penalized for targeting now must sit out the rest of the half and the next half, whether it's the second half of the current game or the first half of the next game."
 

Does the targeting rule specify what part of the helmet makes contact? Leading with one's face and hitting another players helmet is a lot different than leading with the crown of the helmet IMHO.
 

denguegopher said:
Does the targeting rule specify what part of the helmet makes contact? Leading with one's face and hitting another players helmet is a lot different than leading with the crown of the helmet IMHO.
Click to expand...

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
 

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved expanding instant replay officials’ authority regarding targeting fouls in football and authorized electronic devices for coaching purposes in some areas of stadiums.

The panel, which met Tuesday via conference call, agreed to allow the instant replay official to stop the game and create a targeting foul in situations where an egregious action occurred and was missed by on-field officials. Instant replay officials also are required to review all aspects of targeting fouls called by an on-field official.

The NCAA Football Rules Committee believes players were incorrectly disqualified from games in a small number of cases last season. The elements of targeting that replay officials will watch for include launching and forcible contact to the head, among other factors.

Panel members also approved the use of electronic devices for coaching purposes in the press box and locker room during the game. However, that equipment will still be prohibited on the sidelines, in the team areas and on the field. Additionally, the home institution is responsible for ensuring identical television capability and identical video and Internet connectivity in the coaches’ booths of both teams.

Three additional adjustments were approved to enhance student-athlete safety:

• The rules dealing with low blocks were adjusted to prohibit a player who leaves the tackle box from blocking below the waist toward the initial position of the ball.
• The rules pertaining to a defenseless player will include a ball carrier who has clearly given himself up by sliding feet first.
• The deliberate tripping of the ball carrier (with the leg) was approved as a foul.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/a...a-expand-replay-officials-authority-targeting

Section in Bold applies to another long thread on page. :D
 

Thanks Iceland, very helpful. I'm still a bit unclear about the 3rd point under the "Key elements" section. If a tackler uses his head, but leads with the facemask, and hits a QB's head or neck area, it sounds like he still gets ejected. Still ejected if his shoulder hits the opponents head....damn, I would be a very hesitant tackler under those circumstances.
 

denguegopher said:
Thanks Iceland, very helpful. I'm still a bit unclear about the 3rd point under the "Key elements" section. If a tackler uses his head, but leads with the facemask, and hits a QB's head or neck area, it sounds like he still gets ejected. Still ejected if his shoulder hits the opponents head....damn, I would be a very hesitant tackler under those circumstances.
Click to expand...

Especially anytime a QB runs. I mean with a guy like Mitch coming at you, he usually will barrel into you, but if he slides you get ejected. If he doesn't slide, he trucks into you and picks up an extra 4 yards. You can't win
 

Here's how it works: If "your" team does it, it's not targeting. if the other team does it, it's a dirty play and they should be ejected........
 


My worry is that the Gophers will now have a reputation, which will lead to marginal calls being ruled targeting.
 

upnorthkid said:
Especially anytime a QB runs. I mean with a guy like Mitch coming at you, he usually will barrel into you, but if he slides you get ejected. If he doesn't slide, he trucks into you and picks up an extra 4 yards. You can't win
Click to expand...

They're not defenseless when running.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Here's how it works: If "your" team does it, it's not targeting. if the other team does it, it's a dirty play and they should be ejected........
Click to expand...

Usually yeah. :D

As many have mentioned they didn't replay the calls at TCF. Just re-watched the game. Looked like all three calls were deserved. Dammit.
 




MaxyJR1 said:
They're not defenseless when running.
Click to expand...

If I'm a quarterback, I run full speed and when I see the guy launch I would just slide. Guaranteed penalty and possibly an ejection. Ok, not guaranteed because when they hit Mitch while sliding it was no penalty.

Edit : you are starting to see this a lot in hockey. Players know they can draw a major penalty and possibly an ejection, so they are turning their backs right as they are about to get checked into the boards in hopes of drawing the penalty. I think the QB slide is football's equivalent to this phenomenon in hockey. When the refs are robots and can't interpret, the players will manipulate it to their benefit.
 

Word said:
If I'm a quarterback, I run full speed and when I see the guy launch I would just slide. Guaranteed penalty and possibly an ejection. Ok, not guaranteed because when they hit Mitch while sliding it was no penalty.

Edit : you are starting to see this a lot in hockey. Players know they can draw a major penalty and possibly an ejection, so they are turning their backs right as they are about to get checked into the boards in hopes of drawing the penalty. I think the QB slide is football's equivalent to this phenomenon in hockey. When the refs are robots and can't interpret, the players will manipulate it to their benefit.
Click to expand...

Refs need to have some discretion. I'm not a football guy, but it looked to me like the first one was simply a dirty play that deserved ejection no matter what you call the penalty. The other two looked more borderline to me and appeared in the context of normal play. I thought almost immediately about what you're talking about. How long will it be before a quarterback "fakes" sliding, has a defender pull up and then bolts for another fifteen yards? If the targeting and head contact are going to be penalties, then there has to be some type of misconduct penalty for trying to lure a defensive player into the penalty. If they are trying to protect the offensive players, they should not be allowed to sucker defensive players into it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom