In the first quarter of last weekend's game, an MTSU defender (#1) put a nasty hit on BB3 at the end of a run. Targeting was called on the field, but the call was overturned by the replay official. There was a brief debate in the gameday thread where I said that I didn't think it was targeting based on my real-time view of the play. Now that I've re-watched the clip, I came back to admit that I was wrong, but then I re-read the NCAA rule on targeting, and now I'm more confused than ever.
The hit in question took place at the 4:47 mark of the first quarter:
Targeting is covered in Rule 9, Section 1 (Personal Fouls) of the NCAA rulebook:
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below)."
The defender didn't lead with the crown of the helmet, so I don't think ARTICLE 3 applies. Up next:
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below).
Note 1 in the rulebook gives some common indicators of targeting, including launching, leading with the crown of the helmet, or leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area (emphasis mine). I initially said that I didn't think this hit was targeting because the defender didn't make forcible contact to the head or neck area; it looked more like the back to me. Watching the clip above in slow-mo, I was obviously wrong. I don't think it was the defender's intent, but his shoulder clearly makes contact with the back of BB3's neck and thus we have the required indicator of targeting.
However, ARTICLE 4 also requires that the hit involve a defenseless opponent. Note 2 starts by saying that "When in question, a player is defenseless", and then goes on to provide a number of examples of defenseless players, including: a player who has just thrown a pass, a player who has just caught a pass and has not yet had time to protect himself, a player in the grasp of an opponent whose forward progress has been stopped, or a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst. (emphasis mine).
On the play in question, BB3 has clearly given himself up, but is NOT sliding feetfirst. Therefore, while there was a clear indicator of targeting (forceful contact to the head/neck), it wasn't targeting because the player who had obviously given himself up wasn't defenseless (because he didn't slide), despite the "when in question" guidance. Do I have that right?
If so, it's no wonder that this rule isn't called consistently...
Comments
If I remember correctly, I think it was said that after review, it showed the hit was more shoulder pad to shoulder pad
TBH that's what I thought in real-time; it looked like just a garden-variety personal foul because BB3 was clearly giving up on the play and #1 could have avoided the hit. But I don't know how you can look at that replay in slow-motion and not conclude that there was "forceful contact to the [...] neck area".
Probably should bring in a baseball coach and a baseball player to teach BB3 how to slide correctly. Anytime he ran and "slide" I'd get nervous it never was feet first.
Yeah I'm sorry he lit up a QB that had given up on the play and intent was to hit high on a guy going low.
That should have been targeting and an ejection, probably one of the more blatant examples I've seen lately. Don't agree at all with allowing that guy to keep playing. This is the same kind of 'nuance' to the rule that ended LT3's collegiate career with a clear head shot without an ejection, and the same thing that allowed someone like Cam Newton to get hit with head shot after head shot in the NFL without a flag thrown, and there is zero reason for it.
I don't think there was any nuance to Zumwalt's hit on LT3; it was about as clear a case of targeting as there is, they just flat-out missed it.
Long term though, LT got his revenge in terms of NFL success. That will always make me feel better.
This just isn't true. He can give up on the play but that requires sliding feet first. BB made that play awkward. The teachable moment in a play like that, if we are trying to clean up the game, is don't be stupid and dive head first.
Quite frankly I think the feet first caveat to that rule is bullshit and shouldn't matter.
How would that work? You couldn't dive to advance the ball anymore? Its either that or ambiguity as to is the player giving up or diving forward. The feet first part makes it clear the player is giving up.
It is a necessity. You can dive 5 yards at full speed. If that is the line to gain the defender has to have the right to make the stop. He was well beyond first down and should have slid feet first. Period.
Agreed. He was not defenseless because he was "diving". At first it looked like targeting but when the replay showed no helmet to helmet, then it was pretty clear it wasn't. It is interesting they hit them with the unnecessary roughness penalty for it (with targeting) on the original call. Was the 15 yards on the roughness part enforced?
They kept it as a late hit, but it was not. Defender did nothing wrong in my opinion. When he started low, BB was vertical.
Okay I couldn't remember. It wasn't called a late hit I don't believe, just unnecessary roughness. I am glad they reviewed it for targeting but agreed it shouldn't have been a flag for anything at the end.
I may be wrong but I am pretty sure late hit was mentioned but could have been by the announcers.
The hit on LT3 would have happened regardless. The targeting gets decided after the hit. The nuance didnt end LT3's career. The nuance just let the hitter keep playing that game.
I stopped trying to understand targeting a long time ago. It's just too damn subjective for me.
Agreed... Just within these first 2-3 weeks of games, I have absolutely no clue what is going to be called a targeting and what's not... The ones (penalized or not) during the OSU/Minny game and Ole Miss/Louisville games left me so baffled.
Unfortunately, that play is not in the video you posted (and it wasn't in the condensed game video the ACCN posted either.)Edit: I am dumb and went looking for the play.
I'm confused; when I play the video linked in my post, it starts at the play we're discussing. Is the link not working for others or something?
It worked just fine for me.
just gotta hit play, it's set to start at the beginning of that play
I still believe this was targeting all the way. The DB clearly was ducking his head with the intent to hit BB while he was down. BB started his motion to slide (poor slide, but still clearly giving up). The DB got lucky and missed with his helmet and hit BB on the back of his neck with his shoulder. Video evidence (slow motion) clearly shows the intent and CB makes no motion to try and pull off. If the call on the field was no targeting, I could see it standing. However, there was no clear evidence to reverse the targeting call.
That is an issue with targeting, the rules are based on what happens and not what a player tries to do. He was definitely going for burmeister after he committed to going down.
This is just a personal foul, unnecessary roughness (which is what the call actually was when targeting was ruled out.) There is a very specific set of parameter that define targeting and apparently, the actions of the defender and/or BB did not fit those parameters (at least in the eyes of the officials).
However, I would like to see plays like this warrant some sort of stiffer penalty than just 15 yards as they are very dangerous. Maybe disqualify for the rest of the quarter and half of the next quarter. Probably not easy to manage for the officials, though.
I did not use my words .... the foul is called targeting, while the rules are about the out come. The word targeting in English means intent not out come. If I am hunting and targeting a deer then I intent to shoot it. If I miss that doesn't mean I didn't intent to shoot the deer.
I hate it when I see players dive at the ground like that. Its a dirty play and should be flagged every single time even if they miss the player (assuming you want safer football). What good does it do to even go shoulder first into the ground.
The whole premise of competitive sport is based on outcome, not intent. It is extremely difficult in *most* cases to discern intent.
While you are correct in the context of the English language that the word targeting implies intent, in the context of football it has a different meaning. If holding were defined in football the way it is in the dictionary, every play there would be multiple instances in holding.
That being said, targeting may be the wrong name for the foul. I don't know what would be better, but perhaps they could do what soccer used to do (maybe still does) and just call it a personal foul - dangerous play (or player safety violation).
If BB had slid with his feet first and not dove/fallen forward, it would have been targeting. Giving up and going down are different. On a slide, the ball is supposed to be marked where the runner started the slide (act of giving up). On a dive/lunge forward, it is where the ball is when he lands. That is the big difference because the defender has the right to stop his progress. He hit with his shoulder on a runner who wasn't defenseless by the rulebook. That play is on BB to make a decision sooner to slide or not.
I think the issue here because BB didn't slide but led with his head (albeit awkwardly), he wasn't considered defenseless or "giving himself up."
He needs to learn to slide, not dive (or whatever it was that he did on that play).
CJF in his post game press conference said he didn't think it was targeting and acknowledged that BB needs to learn how to slide.
On a related note, am I the only one who thinks that the rule should be amended to penalize offensive players for leading with the crown of their helmet while delivering a hit? I've already seen it a bunch through the first two weeks of the season, (in general, not talking about VT here). If leading with the top of the helmet is dangerous, then it shouldn't matter which player is carrying the football.
Agreed and I thought they put in a rule like that a few years ago, they just don't call it. It would really cut down on defensive targeting too because defenders could get to the body of the runner to make a clean hit.
I wish they would change the rule. Head to head contact shouldn't be an automatic. However, any tackle where the tackler hits with the crown of his helmet should be a targeting call. Ejection should happen if the player deliberately lowers his head and leads with the crown. Not incidental contact.
They call this, although surely not consistently. I saw a targeting get called once where the defensive player hit a player's leg with the crown of his own helmet... I think that was silly to eject someone for that, personally. Especially when you can drill Burmeister in the head with your shoulder and have no call
Burmeister ran his own head into a defender that had every right to occupy that space.
I've resigned myself to the fact that reviews for targeting and catches are a coin flip
Very simple fact for targeting reviews involving Tech.
If we do it, it is targeting. If our opponent does it, it isn't.
Don't think it was targeting, just an unnecessary, dangerous, and dirty hit. Targeting is getting out of control.
One potential fix is to introduce the concept of flagrant 1/flagrant 2 style so we can still call the penalty to keep it as an aversion from undertaking dangerous hits, but make it so that we don't have to punish someone so punitively for incidental contact, particularly when the offensive player lowers their head into creating head to head contact that otherwise wouldn't have happened. My mind always goes back to the 3rd down sack of Trevor Lawrence in the 2019 playoff by Shaun Wade. Trevor ducked down to an almost 90 degree squat angle at the knees and Wade making a normal tackle (lowered angle to hit the legs/waist area) into a "head to head" contact hit. Wade could not have hit Trevor Lawrence in the helmet even if he ran into him standing straight up, TLaw is a legit 6'6.
But you can ignore that because apparently this was proposed years ago and the governing rules body wanted nothing to do with it.
I have seen very few targeting instances per season that SHOULD warrant being expelled from a game. I understand the gravity of improving safety but it is entirely too punitive on most occasions. There is some misconception that you can play the sport of football without ever mistakingly having head contact and there is no way to play without ever lowering the head. In some instances, lowering the head is related to a defensive maneuver gone wrong to avoid collision at all. It is just a mess and I hate seeing players get ejected for a reasonable football play.
I agree, and obviously there will still be "bad" calls because we would be leaving it up to the refs discretion to judge intent, but more often than not, a true ejection worthy hit is distinguishable to anyone watching from many of these incidental head-to-heads we are discussing. I'm even okay with ejecting for the extremely head lowered tackles where you are putting yourself at huge risk of spinal injury, but most of these "head was kind of tilted a little bit, but not really..." or "the runner ducked into to contact," etc. shouldn't be ejections.
The refs should be required to review the penalties at full speed. Slow-mo should not be allowed. Viewing in slow motion invites all kinds of interpretations that I don't think are realistic. The players aren't playing in slow-motion. They can't make decisions as quickly as the viewer may think they can if they're watching in slow-mo. That's my $0.02
I like the full speed idea, but I feel like at full speed, we may as well just skip the replay altogether. Maybe some kind of 80-90% speed threshold as opposed to frame by frame though.
The frame by frame stuff gets kinda ridiculous sometimes.
I think Slo-mo is valuable for reviewing certain things (was the runner down before the ball came out?, was it really a TD?, was he inbounds when he made the catch?) but when it comes to targeting it's really really difficult to measure "intent" in slo-mo. I don't think that watching it at full-speed takes away any value and is therefore unnecessary. Refs can still take a couple looks at it from a couple angles and get a few different opinions from other refs, so long as they all view it at full speed, to make as informed of a decision as they can without biasing their interpretation of intent based on how fast they think a player can make a decision or body movement in real time based on information the refs are viewing in slow-motion.