I was somehow watching the game last night where a Georgia State player got ejected for a targeting call. It had to be the worst call ever. yes the QB was sliding and it should have been a late hit but by no means was a targeting penalty. If that's targeting then Zumwalt should have been ejected as well. Its unreal how this new penalty is going to be called. The softest calls could be targeting and it really sucks. What happened to good hard hitting and pad sounds.
The play is at the 1:18 mark- QB slides then G State player comes in late and hits him in the shoulder pads/ribs area. I can see a late hit but not targeting. If this is how the rules will be expect a lot of close calls this year.
Targeting Penalty
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
It was an awful call.
the fact that Georgia state challenged it and lost wast unreal. I sat there for a few minutes and was lost then turned the channel in disgust. If that had been a VT game I would have been soooo pissed
yeah had that been a vt game i wouldve gone insane. that was a horrific call.
A call that was blown even with a challenge?
.....
The infamous Ruxin phrase...this time used by Pac 12 refs
That's a great image to go with what's being said. I love it.
That call still haunts me till this day...
The way the rules are skewing toward the Offenses is beginning to annoy me. If you don't want the QBs to be touched, just put them in a different color jersey, and hang a couple flags on them. This targeting rule is absurd, and its even moreso when you're trying to defend the pass. You can have position on a guy, but if you can't deflect the pass, you have to let the receiver catch it before you touch him. Its absurd.
Let the defenses play defense.
It's sad that refs are encouraged to call targeting if "it's close" because the play and the penalty enforcement are automatically reviewed. The refs just forget what targeting actually is.
that and what ref wants to undo a targeting call. That's like the missed foul call when lebron hand checked the f out of KD 2 years ago.. Obvious foul but pressure to call it is huge..
I can't see the video because I'm at work so my comments aren't really directed toward this one case.
I get the pushback toward the targeting rule, but it's in place for a good reason. As we've learned more and more about concussions and their long-term effects, it's become clear that they are a serious issue. The old mentality of "shake it off and get back out there" is quickly being thrown out the window.
Football is a physical sport. You can do something completely textbook and still get hurt doing it. So why not try to make is safer by trying to eliminate a play that is dangerous to both the tackler and player being tackled? It may suck to lose yards but the message is simple, "Learn to tackle properly or your team will suffer and you will be ejected."
Now, having said all that, I think the NCAA is taking somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction approach towards this matter. It does seem like any hard hit that knocks a player off his feet is immediately flagged and too often the call stands even though a replay is inconclusive. Like I said, football is physical, and you can get hurt doing the right thing. Benefit should be given to the player and unless it is blatantly obvious, the call shouldn't be made. I'd propose simply stating that it has to be obvious on replay to make the ejection AND penalty stand. Also, the NCAA just needs to do a better job of coaching the officials on this matter and getting them to look for the right things.
It stinks right now, and hopefully we don't see too many games decided by these types of calls, but the NCAA's heart is in the right place (for once).
It wasn't even that hard and it was the QB sliding in at the end of a scramble.
You'll see it when you get him, there is no intent here, the hit is with the shoulder and doesn't appear to contact the QBs head.
More danger of a concussion here by the QB sliding than this defender. And the QB is not a "defenseless player" in this case.
Here's the problem, while you're right in theory, you're going to be wrong in pratice. Like everything "good intentioned" the NCAA attempts, the Haves will be unharmed by the new rule and the have-nots will be dis-proportionally punished in an attempt to show the NCAA is "Cracking Down" on this type of stuff.
Seriously, how many Alabama, Florida State, etc. players total do you think will get ejected from a game this season, vs. Utah State, LaTech, etc?
It also depends on the reputation of the defense. If you have a rep for being a hard-hitting defense that flies to the ball, I wonder if that will impact calls as well?
For example, when it comes to defenses, Virginia Tech is as big a 'have' as it gets. But we've made a name for ourselves with big hits. Now, do we get the benefit of the doubt for being a 'have', or do we get singled out because of our reputation?
That's a straw man argument.
Also, there's no way you can prove that more successful teams do not suffer from this. I'd debate that maybe they have better coaching that keeps them from tackling the wrong way.
I fully admit that it's a straw man argument. But it's grounded in what I know about how the NCAA operates. Come on, are we all pretending now that it's not an inherently corrupt organization? Look at Bloody UNC or Miami. They won't or can't enforce these rules against "big schools." That's how they roll.
That's why I phrased the statement as I did. I agree with the intent of the rule, and think it would be a good one if it were consistently applied to all teams playing the game. We both know it won't be. We all know it won't be, you can pretend otherwise, but that will have to be what it will have to be.
I watched a guy targeting our QB over and over again in the Sun Bowl last year, until the QB himself was removed from the game. How was that player penalized? Was he penalized at all? Or was he celebrated and awarded for his play?
The NCAA is far from perfect. But I'm going to choose to believe that these officials aren't concisously ignoring the well-being of 18-22 year old kids to help other schools get a leg-up on the competition.
Also, I'd suggest that if you "know" how the NCAA operates, you develop a business model and sell it because you are the only one on earth who does. I simply request that you not forget about us lowly TKPers when you get rich!
IIRC, the NCAA does not employ the officials. The NCAA makes the rules, and the Conferences hire the officials.
I admit to being overly cynical, here. But everything I've seen from both the NCAA and conference officials supports my theory, and it's based on admittedly anecdotal evidence. When the line is up to such a judgement call of what is "targeting" and what isn't, I've experience enough to know how it's probably going to play out.
I'm fully ready, willing, and able, to be proven wrong though.
There are protected players and protected teams in all levels of sports.
1 - NFL - You can't breathe on Brady, Brees, or Manning without getting a roughing the passer, but you can maul someone like Donovan McNabb or Cam Newton and you won't get called.
2 - MLB - Its very well known that reputations influence how umps call strike zones, whether by the pitcher or batter.
3 - NHL - If you look at Sidney Crosby the wrong way, you're getting penalized. But the Penguins can have Matt Cooke openly flaunting the rulebook and he won't get called.
4 - NBA - LeBron. Enough Said.
So its really not that much of a straw man argument to say that certain teams will get called for this more often than others. Its already happening elsewhere.
My argument, in summary, is that this is a rule that should be enforced, but it could use a little refining.
Your argument is that officials refuse to enforce certain rules occasionally to benefit a higher tier team.
So what does it matter what rule we're talking about if the officials are going to ignore it anyway? That is a straw man arguement. You're attacking a completely different topic (straw man) and not the one at hand.
You see my point? If you apply this thought to every single possible penalty that they could call, then the "better" schools are going to have less holdings, offsides, PIs, etc. called on them. And to that I aruge that it's simply just better coaching.
All I'm trying to say is that this rule is in place to protect the players. It's not perfect but it's been around for a year, it'll get better as players are taught how to tacke the correct way and officals get better at identifying what is and is not targeting.
I think the concern comes from the severity of the punishment. If holding and PI are not consistently called between "Good" and "Bad" teams it means a couple yards. If this penalty isn't called consistently it means being down a potentially key player. Add to that all the levels of the call that are just pure judgement on the part of the official, and it makes people like me uneasy.
Especially after watching the Zumwalt show last year when this rule was allegedly already in place.
Talk to VT fans about how one PI call against USCw affected the game. I think many would argue that one call had a huge impact on the final score.
Again, I argue that it comes down to better coaching and better players doing the right thing. If you think that officials are intentionally ignoring these things to give a team an advantage, well then there's no way I can prove you wrong on an internet message board. Officals do get calls wrong, that is a fact. But to jump from missing a few calls to a direct correlation between reputation of a team and referees decision making is quite the leap.
(Side note: This is the internet so it's tough to judge how one is coming across. I'm thoroughly enjoying this convo with you, so please don't take anything personal. It's one of the better back and forths I've had on this site)
I wouldn't necessarily argue it's intentional, but I think it's going to happen. There's an unconcious desire to favor the better teams, with the reputation of being "Better Coached" (which is a very chicken-egg argument, IMHO) and "playing tougher" etc...
I have to ask, are you ignoring the Zumwalt thing on purpose? That seems like a pretty clear piece of evidence in my favor: A Star Player, from a higher ranked team, with a much longer and more storied tradition, in a bigger media market was ROUTINELY engaging in the textbook definition of targeting to the point where he literally injured our starting QB out of the game and wasn't really penalized at all for it, certainly wasn't ejected.
I can't say that was an "intentional" oversight by the officials necessarily. But it happened. Ask Logan.
Not only was it in this game but a lot of other games. USC, Oregon, ect ect. He had at least 3-4 targeting hits in our game alone. The guy is a dirty player and will get his clocked rung by a Vet in the NFL.. If he makes it past the practice squad!
Edit: He has missed all of pre-season with the steelers and is unlikely to make the 53 man roster bahahah! Karma's a female dog..
I would also argue that these two hits look fairly similar.
Zumwalt:
Jarrett:
I've been with you a little Skipper but I think this is a big jump. And no I'm not being a homer here. Two completely different angles where the hits came from, receiver who had caught the ball and taken a couple steps vs. a QB that just threw the ball.
Personally, I see Zumwalt launching upwards in his hit and not even trying to wrap up whereas Jarrett is crouching down and trying to stay low.
I said before that the launching was the part of Zumwalt's hit that's questionable. But I think the similarity in these two is the lead-in with the shoulder. In both plays the hit knocks the guy off his feet and looks ferocious.
Again, I'm not trying to defend Zumwalt here, nor am I trying to prove that it was the right call. My bigger point is that this is a good rule. It's there to protect players. I just very strongly disagree with this idea that a "better" team is getting the benefit of the doubt from officials solely because of who they are.
Indeed. I broke this down frame-by-frame in the Pitt recap, but here's the key image:
Not launching. Not aiming with the head. Not a defenseless player. Powerful, indeed, but legal.
Great shot!
And IMO if you had a good view of the Zumwalt hit, you'd see the shoulder leading as well. (I won't argue whether he launched or not because it looked like he did)
Doesn't matter. Logan was, by rule, a defenseless player, having just let go of a pass. Any contact to the head/neck is a targeting foul. Jarrett's hit met none of the criteria.
Shoulder or not, the trajectory of Zumwalt's hit was upward at the chin strap. That is where it should have been called.
Precisely.
In terms of comparing UCLA and VT, I would put them on a pretty equal playing field in terms of reputation. So I don't think your "favoring" point applies. Logan is a pretty well known player too, UCLA was higher ranked at the moment but VT is not chopped liver and is pretty well respected nationally.
Logan is a big guy and he had recently trucked one of their guys. If I was on defense I wouldn't give an inch to LT. On the play where Logan is injured, it was a late hit, but he did appear to lead with the shoulder. You could argue that he "lauched" himself at Logan but then you really start getting into a gray area that needs to be cleared up by the rules or be taught better to the officials.
Again though, you cannot prove officials are making these decisions based on who is playing. An "unconcious desire"? That's grasping for an explanation, at best. I understand you don't like the no-call on UCLA, but that is one example and I would argue it wasn't a clear one.
Zumwalt hit Logan with the crown of his helmet! And the fact that Logan JUST trucked one of their players (cleanly, I might add) the play before only adds to the evidence that it was premeditated launching. Zumwalt was not penalized, let alone ejected in a play where he took out our best player in a textbook case of launching.
I don't see that in the replay very clearly. I see him lower his shoulder and hit Thomas VERY hard. His helmet gets close to Logan, and may even hit him after the shoulder led. Again, you can argue the launch, but that gets into judgement territory (which BTW is my whole point to begin with that this needs to be better defined and left less up to interpretation).
So yeah sure, maybe you have me on the point that these calls aren't being called very well. But I'd argue that it has much much much more to do with a not very well defined set of rules that define targeting and not anything to do with who is playing.
The argument that targeting wasn't called on Zumwalt based solely on the fact that he plays for UCLA is crazy.
Up on his toes here to reach Thomas' chin.
That's the crown of his helmet into the chin, see his facemask tucked down and looking at Thomas' belly while he makes sure Thomas' hands are not up to protect himself?
Note how far away the football was.
Only because I don't feel like reliving this game, I haven't watched the replay to verify whether it was a helmet or shoulder shot. But it is clear to see that this image is after impact. To see what he led with would need about 8-10 frames before this one. The body will absorb the hit and could make it look as though a helmet to helmet collision occurred, especially if, as in this case, the person receiving the hit was not ready and couldn't brace themselves. My complaint is that whether shoulder or helmet, he caught Logan in the chinstrap which should have been flagged.
And he is up on his toes to even reach his chin.
There are several factors here that come into play when it comes to better teams not getting called or getting calls overturned. One that immediately comes to mind is that at games involving top teams you usually have more camera angles to see a play from on the review compared to lower tier games where they may only have long distance shots. That wasn't the case here so I am not sure what it was that made them not overturn the call other then the dropping of the head. We can speculate that the head dropped because the player was going for the ball but the ref could speculate right back that it was to intentionally hurt the QB. This is why on replays I am a big fan of how the NHL and now MLB do their replays which is that the call goes to one location and its that teams responsibility to make the call for all games. That would be much harder to do in College football due to the volume of games but I still think its something to look at moving forward. Are they always going to get the call right? No but at least its one crew making the calls across the board during a certain window.
the refs could also say the contact started at his neck/pads and then up to his helmet.. ohh wait that's targeting mhmm. As you see in the picture above Zumwalt has his arms by his chest so he can continue to rake up through Logans head.
You get no argument from me on the Zumwalt hits, he should have already been thrown out of the game before the Logan hit.
Ok everybody chill. My initial point at the start of this whole thing was simply this:
The targeting rule is in place for good reason. Unfortunately, it's left up to a lot of interpretation and should be better defined. The knee-jerk reaction that seems to happen too often is that somebody is hit hard, and a flag is thrown. Due to the severity of the penalty, it should be an obvious call in order for a player to be ejected. There should be no doubt and if video evidence doesn't exist that proves it was targeting, then there should not be an ejection. That's it, that's my point.
Duff's argument that this rule somehow helps bigger name teams just doesn't make since to me. In fact, the entire "[Insert team here] gets more calls than we do" argument is a bad one and really tough to actually prove is directly related to just a reputation. So that's my other point.
I don't get how you can be against a rule that is there to protect players in a time where we are learning more and more firghtneing symptoms that arise from head injuries.
I won't argue the Zumwalt play any further. I shouldn't have even tried to defend it in the first place, but I was trying to make a point. I shouldn't have taken a general debate and made it about one single play.
Ok, now because I think we all need to just relax a bit, here's a funny gif:
BUT IT WAS A CATCH!!
Oh...wait, wrong game.
YES!!!!
The opposite side of your argument though is how many defensive players end up with concussions or worse injuries if they hesitate to follow their instincts while tackling. I am not condoning leading with your head as correct form should have your facemask up when tackling someone. The other part of this rule that actually really irritates me the most as they rarely seem to take it into account is when the defensive player comes in with great form only to get penalized because the offensive player makes a last second adjustment or move and what would have been shoulder to chest, instead becomes targeting. I think a lot of the mentality on this is effected greatly by X-Mo cameras and such that can be slowed down to the fraction of seconds so when Ref's constantly see plays that slow, they mentally think a player could have adjusted not taking into account how fast the play really is.
To your first point, I think that fixes itself by coaching players to be in the right position to make the right play from their first day putting on pads. As it currently stands though, I think the risk for injury is way less for defenders than it is for offenseive players. If you can find examples against that though, then I'd love to see them. (Honestly I didn't play football, I'm going off what I've seen)
Your second point is a really good one, though. And honestly, I just think that gets to my point about the NCAA needing to do a better job of teaching its officials.
My biggest problem with less the targeting and more the helmet-to-helmet calls. They figuratively never take into account when the offensive player lowers his own head. I have never understood exactly what a defensive player is supposed to do in that situation.
That's my issue with Brandon Meriweather's latest suspension. The receiver's head went down. Meriweather was going in for the shoulder.
That was beyond defensible as a call.
I'm not sure the helmet ever hits him.
It's a shoulder. I can understand the hit too though.
The defender wants to stop him, he goes low but how many of these really athletic guys have done things like go under tackles or only touch with their hands and then get up and run again.
No, you have to make sure he's down. And when the runner is that low, you must go down with him.
Poor call.
I think the point of ejecting him was for leading with the crown of the helmet. I don't think he did, as it looked like he tucked his shoulder in and his head went down too, but leading with the crown is grounds for ejection (in most games).
I think the NCAA saw this as a guidebook, rather than a parody.
Oh jeez I was about to post a Sarcastaball reference and i got all the way down to the end of the comments before I saw yours. You're a human after my own equine heart.
Reading all the comments before posting? Are you new to the interwebz?
First! Aw, crap...
That's definitely for the appearance of leading with his head. When they show the other angle, it looks like he ducks his head just before he hits. It's a soft hit, no doubt.
This is the other part that's always kind of confused me, and it's likely because I'm stupid...but what exactly does "leading with the head" mean? Aren't really any hit where the defender is not standing straight up "leading with the head?" Like when it's blatantly spearing or whatever, I can see it. When you launch yourself forward perpendicular to the ground I get it, but half the time I see two guys run into each other, when they collide their body parts are in relatively the same area. If their helmets touch it's a "helmet to helmet" hit?
I believe the rule states something along the line that leading with the head implies an inability to see the opponent at which you are hitting. So, if you duck your head before you hit the person, you're "leading with your head".
I think it's two part. If your tackle is you launching yourself like a missile head-first, that is leading with your head. If you duck your head and lead with the crown of your helmet, that's also a penalty and I think that's more because of the risk for the tackler and not the person being tackled due to increased exposure to a spinal injury. Often times, these two things are one in the same, but it is possible for them to be different depending on the situation.
I thought the call was BS.
IMHO, the defender did duck his head at the last minute, but this was due to the QB sliding and the defender seeing an opportunity to get the ball.
He naturally ducked his head as he changed his focus from QB to the ball.
But, if this was considered targeting, then there is NO WAY that the hit that LT took to the the neck from 'I am a punk' Zumwalt in the bowl game isn't targeting.
And yes, again, I am still miffed.
Was frequently called incorrectly last year, the knee-jerk for hard hits was to always call the penalty despite the huge impact that the ejection has on the game, and this instance was ridiculous. Basically just fell on him. They should definitely be able to revoke the penalty if they determine it wasn't targeting after the review.
In the case of the play in the video posted, it was actually upheld on review.
Sun Belt refs FTW.
I realize. I also don't necessarily trust the review crew (Danny Coale caught that pass), but it's ridiculous to still have the penalty when the hit was determined to be legal, or at least not targeting.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I could have sworn they changed the rule this year to where the penalty is removed if the ruling is overturned. But I believe if there are multiple fouls (or something like that) on the same play, the penalty yardage for targeting cannot be reversed.
I really think this whole rule set is absurd.
I DO agree that people should tackle properly, shouldn't rough the passer, shouldn't hit defenseless receivers, and the like. I don't disagree at all with the idea of being pseudo-protected while playing a very dangerous game.
But the specific rules that have been created attempt to draw a black-and-white distinction between what truly endangers a player and what doesn't, and that line is not clear.
rant
I look at plays where this is (and isn't) called in the following light:
Is the player intentionally trying to hurt someone, or using reckless disregard for another person's safety as a motivator to take a shot at someone? If so, get them out of the game because they're demonstrating an overall lack of sportsmanship.
Is the player in the process of doing what regular footballers are going to do, which is try to get to the quarterback, receiver, or ballcarrier as soon as humanly possible to stop them from advancing forward? If he is and successfully manages to stop the guy with appropriate use of his own body without causing injury or the appearance of disproportionate force, then it's all part of the game.
This play shows what is wrong with the rule. All the little check boxes about the targeting rule may be checkable, but the play itself doesn't hurt anyone, isn't violent, and shouldn't have been called at all. The refs have lost the spirit of the rule - player protection for the letter of the rule - head down, sliding QB, whatever. The forest has been lost because we try to evaluate the trees in real time.
On the other hand, I look at a play from the past where James Harrison took out the Bengals(Browns?) punter by nailing him as hard as he could while the punter wasn't looking. Total disregard for the safety of another human being, took advantage of a player who wasn't defending himself in order to be an intimidating presence (aka to be an a$$hole). I don't think this was called at the time, he may have been fined afterwards. This is the kind of play that has to be legislated and legislated HARD.
The goal is safety in a dangerous game, which, I think, can only be helped through a strong commitment to sportsmanship and proper technical execution. Accidents happen, plays happen quickly, injuries or worse could happen because of the nature of the game. But the malicious intent is what I see as the problem, and throwing people out of games, off teams, or out of leagues is the best way to promote the safety of the game.
/rant
i didn't like the call at first when i was watching last night, but we have to remember the intent of the rule is to change behavior. the QB had given himself up and this is college, there is no need to even touch him. he's down when he's down. also, all of his contact, head or shoulders, was directed at the QBs head. i don't have a problem with the call under the new rules at all.
Probably so. It's pretty much what's been stated time and again by announcers during the NFL preseason games. They're flagging everything in the preseason to get players and coaches to alter the way they do things, so they don't HAVE to flag so much later on.
Do you believe that necessitates an ejection?
under the new rules, yes. if you launch yourself in the direction of another player's head, you have to know this is what will happen. he lead into the contact with his head and shoulders against a guy who had given himself up. they are going to call that, so we (players AND fans) need to get used to it.
I'm not debating whether the rule was interpreted correctly as HOAT pointed out, I'm asking whether you think that play was inherently unsportsmanlike and/or endangered the health and well being of either player involved to the degree that it merited the dismissal of the defensive player from further participation in the game. If so, than I believe we should drastically rethink continuing to support amateur football.
For the record this is targeting and this is what should be eliminated from college football.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlAvYjHVfSg
Stating both of these plays deserve the same punishment equally makes no sense to me.
I find myself cringing everytime we make a big, clean hit because I'm so worried that it will be penalized.
I don't see a late hit, much less a targeting call.
Anybody see the Ole Miss LB get ejected last night? It looked exactly like Zumwalt's hit on Logan to me and seemed to meet the same criteria .
What's the difference? I don't see it.
Also, I can't not post this:
LT3 is taller.
which makes it even more of a targeting penalty because Zumwalt had to go higher to knock him out. He easily could have hit him mid chest. Instead he launched himself into Logan
The kicker for me is that it happened immediately after LT3 trucked one of their guys, monumentally increasing the chances that it was premeditated, which all but guarantees targeting.
And yet.... no call