Targeting Rule - Was it Targeting?

[bashbrother]

This board is for everyone to discuss and make our own call on the rule and even some video clips from games in which the call was made...

[bashbrother]

Ok Board....  this is an ALL-PLAY question.

A couple of times on this site this year the topic has been on the NEW targeting rule....   Watch the following video from Saturday's Wabash vs. Witt game and all please vote on whether you think it is targeting or not....  I will withhold my personal feelings until after the fans on here have a chance.   Take a look.

The play is at  2:59:16  -  be sure to watch the slow motion replays that follow the play... gives everyone a great look at it.

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1200203/events/2531899

Interested to hear your takes and make sure to register your vote above in the poll.

[hazzben]

I say no.

The back has turned upfield and is squared to the defender. He wasn't in the process of making the catch and was no longer defenseless.

It actually reminds me a lot of this play earlier in the year for Nebraska. I think the Nebraska play and those like it will be a part of how we'll see the rule adjusted before next season.

That said, I think both the Wabash and Nebraska examples may have been a bit of a reaction to how the defender acted. Not that I agree with this, but in both cases the defender celebrates the big hit. I think this response can incite an official to throw the flag, since they are SO sensitive to this type of big hit nowadays. I think that's silliness, let the players enjoy themselves on the field.

That's my take...

[DPU3619]

Rule 9-1-3:

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

I've watched it probably 50 times. My initial thought when the play occurred was that the call was hogwash. But, the more I watch it, did he initiate contact with the top of his helmet? Unfortunately, yeah he did. I don't think he intended to. I think he intended to shoulder block the guy. But, the top of his helmet is the first thing to contact the WR.

EDIT: Pause that thing right before contact is made. He's leading with the head. The rule is dumb. You shouldn't get ejected for tackling somebody like that. But, as it's written, yeah, he hit him first with the top of his helmet. I voted the "could go either way" because there's no way that a ref should be making that determination on a full speed tackle from behind the tackler. The ref on Wabash's sideline made that call.

[Scots13]

No way is that targeting. The Wittenberg player caught the ball; it was a tackle. He did not leave his feet; he did not use the crown of his helmet; he used his shoulder. That's a bad call. Do they want a 2 hand touch rule for plays like that? The Witt guy needs to have his head on a swivel.

I asked an ODAC/USAC official what the procedure is for targeting. They can appeal to the NCAA head of officials to overturn the 1st half suspension of the Monon Bell game. I hope they do.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Broadly speaking, this is a general subject area in which I respectfully disagree with some others on this board.  I know this can be a divisive topic and I stress that I respectfully disagree and that the following is my opinion.  I am okay with the basic idea of seeking to reduce the number of "high" hits in football, particularly those delivered on pass receivers attempting to catch the ball.  I like the idea of making pass defense about playing the ball rather than the man, and stressing that defensive backs should play defense by breaking up the pass rather than crushing the WR or RB who is looking up at the ball to make his catch.  With that said, I have also stated and reiterate that I prefer not to see players ejected.  15-yard penalties, OK, and questionable hits reviewed by the league office to determine whether a hit merits a suspension.  Now that's out of the way...

On this specific hit, I don't think it was delivered with intent to be helmet-to-helmet and probably would not have called targeting, but I would vote #2 in the poll above; I can see why it was called since the refs only see this once at full speed.  As I have tried to stress above, I would prefer to see fewer hits of this type.  I understand the opposing viewpoint that football is by nature a violent game and it is impossible to legislate that away entirely.  I also have heard the arguments about DB's going low resulting in more torn ACL's and don't entirely buy that either.  There's a way to tackle guys without tearing their ACL's or jacking up their helmets.  jknezek has suggested before, and I agree with, the idea of adding a rugby-style tacking rule that requires any tackle attempt to come with a clear attempt to wrap the ballcarrier up and leaving the one's feet before initiating contact is permitted.  Most of the hits that I see as problematic come when a defensive back or linebacker takes a run at the ballcarrier and launches himself with no attempt to wrap the ballcarrier up.  Anyways, that was a long ramble which got away from the original premise, but I felt was worth writing out.

[Scots13]

Rule 9-1-3:

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

[/b]

I've watched it probably 50 times. My initial thought when the play occurred was that the call was hogwash. But, the more I watch it, did he initiate contact with the top of his helmet? Unfortunately, yeah he did. I don't think he intended to. I think he intended to shoulder block the guy. But, the top of his helmet is the first thing to contact the WR.

EDIT: Pause that thing right before contact is made. He's leading with the head. The rule is dumb. You shouldn't get ejected for tackling somebody like that. But, as it's written, yeah, he hit him first with the top of his helmet. I voted the "could go either way" because there's no way that a ref should be making that determination on a full speed tackle from behind the tackler. The ref on Wabash's sideline made that call.

I disagree. I see the db as hitting the WR with his shoulder and rolled into him in a way that his helmet was used, but not the crown of his helmet. I paused it at 3:00:03 and saw shoulder to shoulder, or at least in my opinion. He was just under the WR's chin. I say it was just a good strong, fundamental (minus the wrapping up thing that many players don't do anymore) football play.

[gobash83]

Rule 9-1-3:

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

I've watched it probably 50 times. My initial thought when the play occurred was that the call was hogwash. But, the more I watch it, did he initiate contact with the top of his helmet? Unfortunately, yeah he did. I don't think he intended to. I think he intended to shoulder block the guy. But, the top of his helmet is the first thing to contact the WR.

EDIT: Pause that thing right before contact is made. He's leading with the head. The rule is dumb. You shouldn't get ejected for tackling somebody like that. But, as it's written, yeah, he hit him first with the top of his helmet. I voted the "could go either way" because there's no way that a ref should be making that determination on a full speed tackle from behind the tackler. The ref on Wabash's sideline made that call.

I was at the Wabash game on Saturday and had a clear view of the hit.  My initial reaction (and that of my son who was sitting next to me) was that there was no intent to use the helmet to make the hit but helmet to helmet contact was made and it could go either way (the Wabash player tilts his head slightly when initiating contact, which is what caused the helmet to helmet contact).  Watching the replay, I feel the same way now.   

[SaintsFAN]

That said, I think both the Wabash and Nebraska examples may have been a bit of a reaction to how the defender acted. Not that I agree with this, but in both cases the defender celebrates the big hit. I think this response can incite an official to throw the flag, since they are SO sensitive to this type of big hit nowadays. I think that's silliness, let the players enjoy themselves on the field.

That's my take...

Agree 100% - I'm not sure how the refs can ignore a celebration act or a "mean mug" (if it's even still called that). This issue hits home for me as my playing career at Thomas More was cut short by a history of concussions and a very big one in my last play (it was a Grade 3 - where you are confused who you are for a few days after). These days the helmets are safer (there's no need for the Steve Tasker mushroom head helmet today), and there's a greater emphasis on it BUT football is a dangerous sport. Period. We know this by the time we graduate HS.

I get being cautious with hits and targeting plays on defenseless WR's but there have been times when a QB or RB has turned upfield and crossed the line of scrimmage when he gets hit and they've thrown a flag. Notre Dame's Stephon Tuitt was kicked out on a play like this last Saturday night and the penalty GAVE Pitt a first down on a play that they were stopped short of a first down. It was a play that wouldn't even have been flagged last year. I think they need to throw flags on only the hits that make everyone say "Ohmygod".

The really big problem with this as it relates to D3 is the use of instant replay to reverse a disqualification. The only game where this can be reasonably accomplished is in Salem. THATS a problem, IMO.

[Toby Taff]

I will say I don't really think that hit was targeting, but it was an unnecessary hit that put the defender in a position for the call to be made. If you can throw that shoulder to get the big hit, why cant you open your arms and wrap up to make the tackle? If he tackles the dude, he probable doesn't get tossed

[ExTartanPlayer]

I will say I don't really think that hit was targeting, but it was an unnecessary hit that put the defender in a position for the call to be made. If you can throw that shoulder to get the big hit, why cant you open your arms and wrap up to make the tackle? If he tackles the dude, he probable doesn't get tossed

Basically, Toby said what I took about 1,000 words to say above in one sentence.  + K

[wally_wabash]

I would encourage right-thinking football fans who believe that this play does not warrant a suspension (it doesn't) to tweet @NCAC and politely request that they #FreeHouston.  The play was loud and violent and drew a flag on the field because of those things.  I don't think the game officials were in a position to determine where the target was, whether or not the carrier was defenseless (he wasn't...dude ducked into that hit), or whether the contact happened with the helmet at all let alone the crown of the helmet.  In fact...I think I said something about this back in August....ah yes, here it is:

Okay, two things.  First, good for everybody trying to protect players.  Second, I am WAY uneasy with the idea that our officials, who will not have the benefit of replay, are being told to disqualify players who hit above the head.  I'm not one to rail on officials here, but now it's important: sometimes these guys have trouble keeping track of the down or where the correct spot of the ball is.  Now we have to trust them to make a split second decisions about 1) where a particular player was contacted, 2) whether that player was "defenseless" and 3) whether the player doing the hitting was "targeting".  That's an awful lot to process and decide in a matter of seconds and the ramifications are HUGE...particularly if a penalty occurs that carries over to the following week.  I just don't know how comofortable I am with our officials determining player intent.  My hope is that disqualifications are being reserved for really egregious behavior.  My gut tells me that this is going to be a point of emphasis thing and we might see a lot of players lose games because of this that probably don't deserve to. 

I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this this year, but now here we are riding into the end of the season's rivalry game and Wabash has a guy on the fence because the game official incorrectly checked the "targeting" box. 

Here's this from the approved rulings section regarding rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4:

As ball carrier A20 sweeps around the end and heads upfield, he lowers
his head and contacts defensive end B89 who is trying to tackle him. The
players meet helmet to helmet. RULING: No foul. Neither A20 nor B89
is a defenseless player and neither has targeted his opponent in the sense
of Rule 9-1-3.

This I think most closely describes the play in question here.  The rest of the rulings have to do with players leaving their feet and launching (didn't happen here), hitting quarterbacks in the head (didn't happen here), blasting WRs who are in the process of catching a ball (didn't happen here) so they don't really apply as well as this ruling does. 

Remember... @NCAC, #FreeHouston.  There's a right thing to do here. 

[Jonny Utah]

Well by rule it was targeting.  The rule even has the words "when in question".  He does lower his head, but then brings it up at the end so I don't think it's the worst hit in the world.

The rule itself needs to be changed, but as it is, I would say it was targeting.

[waf56]

Remember... @NCAC, #FreeHouston.  There's a right thing to do here.

According to the Twittersphere the ruling on the field has been upheld. It appears that the NCAC is justifiably concerned about the health of Dannies.

[wally_wabash]

Remember... @NCAC, #FreeHouston.  There's a right thing to do here.

According to the Twittersphere the ruling on the field has been upheld. It appears that the NCAC is justifiably concerned about the health of Dannies.

It's Tuesday.  The people can still be heard!