The targeting call & ejection of the Nebraska kid was, imho, the worst call that I think I've ever seen. Clearly he wrapped his arms around the WR and turned his head away from the receiver to take away any possibility of head to head. It was just unbelievable that a flag was thrown to begin with because no way was it unnecessary roughness - just a perfect wrap up and tackle. When Ron Cherry came back after the review and said it was confirmed, I about lost it. All of the ESPN halftime guys were going crazy too.
This targeting call, subsequent ejection in Nebraska-UCLA was questionable, to say the least
https://t.co/NBkLgCXGMo pic.twitter.com/wlWVYlnjOI— Sports Illustrated (@SInow) December 27, 2015
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
The review of a targeting call is purely for show. I don't think I've ever seen one be reversed. Safety being such a focus at all levels of the game right now, if a flag gets thrown for targeting, it's gonna get upheld. And that's a big problem, because targeting has become about a 50/50 call.
I saw one picked up, I think in the first year the rule was implemented. The biggest problem with the rule, I think, is the codified phrase "when in doubt, it is a foul." No, there should be no doubt if you have video review. Either the rule was clearly broken or it was not. When tied with an ejection, you'd better be sure. Targeting calls are out of control. I am 100% for player safety, but the rule needs to be re-written with clear instructions and removal of the "doubt" phrase.
The thing that gets me is, my understanding of the targeting rule is that helmet-to-helmet contact is supposed to be the initial contact between players, but I see targeting called (and upheld!) when the shoulder clearly makes contact first.
That's not the rule (at least, per the explanation I have heard a few commentators give, which could be simple rationalization of weird calls). It is any contact, initiated with the head, shoulder, or forearm, to the head or neck area of an opposing player. I believe there are stipulations for defenseless players that have slightly different wording, but targeting does not, by definition, have to be helmet-to-helmet. That was the original rule, but it was expanded. The combination of "head or neck area" and "when in doubt" make this an absolute joke of a rule.
Thanks, I was still thinking the helmet of the player initiating the hit had to be what made first contact. If I read you right, now if first contact on any hit is above the shoulderpads, it's targeting?
Yep. And that's where it gets really hazy. If you want to call any blow to the head targeting, OK. But this "neck area" thing, which expands out into the shoulders because they're kinda sorta even with the neck, leads to a lot of gray area, which in turn leads to a lot of bad calls. I've seen targeting called when a guy got hit square in the chest, because it kind of looked like an upward angle that might have, if extrapolated a bit, hit him right at the top of the chest protector, which is kind of the base of the neck, which is the "neck area" in the view of the official.
They gotta change the wording on that to "above the shoulderpads." Would eliminate pretty much all confusion, since there's a definitive line above which it's targeting.
But also, I hate calling any contact above said line "targeting." The word targeting implies intent. Like I said down the thread, there should be one penalty for incidental contact above the shoulderpads, and a more severe penalty (with ejection) if the contact was intentional.
Agree. I think there can be a line drawn between something like unnecessary roughness and targeting, which as you say, implies intent. The original rule of leading with the crown of the helmet and/or launching should suffice. But the rule went overboard after that point.
I believe this is the definition of targeting.....
What do these 2 have in common?
Neither called for targetting, wut?
IMO 13 was obviously looking at the action with the ball carrier. 24 had the responsibility to watch out for himself there.
lol
no
You don't take a 10 yard head start and come flying in crown of the helmet blindsided to the earhole of an opponent at the end of the play and then blame the person you assaulted for not knowing it was coming.
The only way that I can rationalize krak_t's comment is if he knows you're a vocal Panthers fan and he is just messing with you. If that isn't the case, he may have just exposed himself as a bit of a sociopath.
Sociopath? Really?
All I know of the play is the gif above. Didn't watch the game. Haven't seen a longer cut.
In the context of that gif, it looks to me like 13 is looking down the whole time, running on a fixed course to confirm the tackle is made. It doesn't look like he ever sees 24. He certainly can't see him through the top of his own football helmet.
If someone has the link to the longer cut that show otherwise I'd be happy to revise my statement, but from the context of what I see, it seems like an accident.
Seems like a very different animal than Zumwalt's headhunting on LT3, where he had to launch himself up to make contact w/ Logan's head.
I thought you were being sarcastic...
anyway, this should provide all the context you need. I'll let you make your own judgements
Wow, this is the first time I've seen this, I didn't watch the game or see highlights... that is about as bad of a cheap shot as I've ever seen
Well shit.
That clip is pretty damning, and I fully retract my previous opinion. He was obviously locked on to his target and launched directly at his head.
What a dick.
He should have been ejected from the game.
There was a lot of chippiness before that, and some of it was being ignored.
Norman should have been penalized a couple times, too. He certainly was not innocent. But Odell should have been ejected.
"13" is O'Dell Beckem a WR.
Give Alum 50 legs
Yeah...
There's 24 here
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And all the action about here
And Beckham still nails him right in the temple. Dirty play, penalty and ejection 100% of the time.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that both y'all completely missed the sarcastica there..
Honestly, I've seen so much stupid on the internet recently, sarcasm isn't even registering at this point.
And honestly... the fact there were no ejections in that game probably cost both NYG and Car in their games yesterday. Both teams came out incredibly flat and both teams were harshly penalized early for extracurricular stuff setting the tone because both Min and Atl knew the refs would be looking to do it. Had the refs done their job in this game, it wouldn't have had that kind of domino effect later on.
The Giants were fantastic at shooting ourselves in the foot, this season. It's obvious they need a Fuller to bolster their defense. Next season should be a brave new world, with my Hokies and Giants having new coaches.
That hit was then, is now, and shall forever remain a clean hit.
"When in doubt, it is a foul" is 100% the mindset that needs to be used for the officials on the field. Everything moves so quickly, the best thing to do is get a flag on the field so they can get together and talk about it, then send it up to the replay booth. However, the old "indisputable evidence" thing absolutely cannot be used in this case. You can't eject kids for perfectly legal hits simply because you "can't overturn" the call on the field, which is usually a pretty conservative call to begin with. The way targeting has been enforced the past couple of years is downright pathetic.
Actually I'm pretty sure one was thrown against VT in '14 and it got overturned. I remember being surprised that whole penalty, including yards, was changed, because in its first year I believe only the ejection could be reversed, but the yards would stand.
I believe it was against K. Jarrett
One of our d-linemen (I want to say Woody Baron) had one reversed against
Wake Forest-- Nevermind. Yep, never seen a call overturned in a real game that actually happened and wasn't just a bad dream.But in seriousness, I believe Kyshoen's hit against (I want to say Devin Street in 2012) Pitt was also a targeting that was overturned, but back then the penalty yardage could not be undone but the ejection was.
I think there was one in the 2014 UVA game. IIRC it was on a kickoff or punt and got overturned after being called targeting.
Nope, that one was upheld. It was on Deon Newsome leveling a guy on a punt return.
Ah yes, you are correct. There was one that was overturned though last season but it (obviously) escapes me as to which game.
Nigel Williams, on a sack in the WF game that may or may not have happened.
Of course, the WtF game. I was a few (dozen) deep so that would explain the poor memory.
The one in the Miami game was stupid too
That one fit all of the established criteria for a targeting flag, forearm to the head/neck & body "launching" even though he was trying to jump over a player that was clearly going down, yet you watch it and at no point feel like the "defenseless" player was in danger. A clear indication that the rule needs to be looked at.
I found this humorous.
Edit: BroncsZoo, I added the video and renamed the thread to be more descriptive.
Seems the sideline judge didn't like that call.
(I'm a horrible lip-reader)
It looks to me like he is saying "What are you doing?!"
I think he says "boy oh boy oh boy"
I didn't see the play and review live but I wouldn't be too surprised at a poor call by Ron Cherry and Co
Wow. I don't really understand how or why the officiating has gotten so horrendously bad. I've heard complaints about officiating and certain calls for years but for some reason it seems like this year in particular has been worse than ever before at both the college and pro levels. So bad, in fact, that it's been discussed, sometimes at length, on prominent sports talk shows on national TV. I don't remember officiating ever being a topic of discussion on national TV with the frequency it has been this season. It's kind of outrageous. What is causing this seemingly drastic negative change in the quality of officiating?
I think there are three things at play in the seemingly new increase in officiating issues:
1. It appears to me that some newer rules, or clarifications of older rules, are written in a way that introduces more ambiguity into the rulebook. The targeting rule is a very poorly written example. It does not differentiate between contact that is malicious and contact that is purely incidental. It includes the phrase, "defenseless player" which can be interpreted differently by officials. It doesn't leave room to account for an offensive player that lowers his head or drops his body in the split second before contact which causes a hit intended for the upper torso to contact the head or neck. Lastly, the "when in doubt, it is foul" attitude of enforcement goes against everything we usually think of as just when it comes to rule enforcement, especially when the penalty is as severe as ejection.
2. Instant replay has introduced a level of scrutiny that previously did not exist. When plays are slowed down so much, people tend to lose regard for basic laws of physics. I have seen many examples of a player who begins the process of a tackle only to see the offensive player adjust position such that contact that would previously be legal, becomes illegal while the defender no longer has the ability to overcome his momentum enough to adjust to the adjustment. A helmet gets grazed and its a foul. In super slow motion it looks like foul. In real time it all happens in a few milliseconds. This also has a lot to do with the new found ambiguity regarding what is an isn't a catch. In slow-mo replay you can see if the ball touches the ground or if it moves or if it is bobbled or if feet touch in or out of bounds. We analyze routine plays with Zapruder Film level scrutiny nowadays, but if you scrutinize it too much you can pretty much convince yourself of either outcome on 50/50 plays.
3. Inconsistent enforcement will always be an issue when humans are involved. But this can be mitigated. Better written rules would help, but what is also needed is stronger clarifications with regards to the intent of rules combined with clear oversight by the officiating committee. Full-time officials would really help here. Allowing officials to focus only on being officials would allow for more in depth study of rules and their real world application. This could also lead to officials that are in better physical shape to allow them to better keep up with the freak athletes they are trying to officiate. Full-time officials with stronger oversight and clarification of rules should also help with what appears to be a lack of knowledge of the rules evident in far too many games (*cough* Danny Coale caught that ball *cough*).
Ron Cherry: giving competent officiating the business since 2007
Incidental helmet-to-helmet contact like in this play is getting called targeting way too much, which leads me to think they should have two penalties and have ejection only tied to the more serious call. Think of the old incidental facemask vs intentional facemask penalties. Implementing an incidental contact penalty would actually give the replay official something to look for during review as an objective standard in determining if contact was intentional or not.
In a way there are two penalties. Once targeting is called you get 15 yards regardless, but the review is to see if an ejection is warranted as well. Even if the review shows that there really was no targeting and the player isn't ejected, you still get hit with a 15 yarder.
Not anymore, this year the review covers both.
Another reason why the NCAA needs to take over officiating and make all of them full time officials.
I'd like to see the P5 get proactive about this and pool all officials together and set a standard across all five conferences. It could also be the first step on the P5 breaking ties with the NCAA and becoming their own body, which I'm fully in favor of.
The penalty for targeting is so harsh that there should be a lesser offense that is used in the event that it's questionable.
Obvious targeting held up by review = ejection for a game
Questionable play as verified by review = sit out the remainder of drive
Then the officials could call the lesser one in most cases.
Right now it's like a conviction without a trial.
An ejection isn't automatic. If the review shows the intent wasn't there then the team is only hit with a 15 yard penalty.
That's a change this year.
Really? So if the intent isn't there, do they just pick up the flag and forget it?
Sean Huelskamp was ejected for targeting during the ECU game, and had to sit out the first half of the Pittsburgh game.
That was a pretty questionable call, but it didn't seem as if the review refs could overturn it. I don't have the video accessible to me at the moment, but that's how I remember it.
Yet he was out for the first half of the Pittsburgh game.
So while you're technically correct, you're missing the point I was trying to make.
He was ejected for the first half of the Pittsburgh game because the targeting happened during the second half of the ECU game. I guess that's to keep someone from taking out their frustration right at the end of a game not caring if they miss the last few minutes due to an ejection.
My impression was that the 15 yards could not be overturned, but the ejection was at the discretion of the review. However, I'm being told that has changed this year.
I do agree with your original point (as I understood it) that there should be some leeway in this penalty. Sometimes what looks bad at normal speed isn't nearly as bad when reviewed. Take the hit that Jarrett put on the Pittsburgh receiver (his name escapes me) along the sideline a few years ago. At real speed it almost looked like he led with the helmet and launched. But on replay it was obvious that he led with the shoulder and his feet were still on the ground at impact. Thankfully the refs got that one right and no flag was thrown. But similar plays do draw flags and it would be nice if upon review it could be decided how large of a penalty should be assessed, or none at all. Just as long as it doesn't take 5-10 minutes to decide on every big hit.
Come to think of it, I've never seen a good targeting call.mi hope they address this in the offseason
I've seen a couple that were flagrant, were called, and seemed worthy of an ejection.
But it's certainly overused.
Ron Cherry
/end thread
I know the ACC provided the officiating crew on the ground, but who was the replay team? They're usually from a different conference.
Really? I thought they were al always from the same conference.
I've seen a few games where, for example, the crew on the ground is B1G, while the crew in the booth is Pac12. Not sure how common that is, though.
Can anyone explain to me why they picked up the pass interference flag in the endzone against Tulsa?
The ball was uncatchable. I know Bucky is tall but he's not that tall. I thought it was the right call by the officials.
Looked to me like it was uncatchable due to the CB hanging on his back and then neck for the last 3 yards or so he ran. Kinda slows a guy down and prevents a jump.
I agree. The ball looked to be about a foot past Bucky's outstretched hands, but that was after the DB literally had his arms around his neck. The ref saw that and threw the flag. Then someone decided it was uncatchable. If Bucky doesn't get choked on the route, he at least gets a fingertip on the ball. I understand if the ball is 5 feet over a recievers head, but when you are actively running a route on a deep ball and you carry the defender for a few yards, there should be a flag.
They said it was unwatchable, but if the DB wasn't draped over him for about the last 5 yards of his route, it was easily catchable for Hodges. Another bad call.
I'm going completely off memory here but IRCC the ball hit the ground at least 3 or 4 yards beyond the end of the End Zone and Bucky was in about the first 1-3 yards of the End Zone when the ball sailed over his head. The ball basically hit the ground at least 30 feet past where it went over Bucky. I'm not going to do the projectile motion on it but that's a pretty long distance for the ball to travel horizontally if it's only 10 feet off the ground when it passes Hodges. I really don't think it was catchable even if Bucky was running free.
I thought the ball landed in the endzone and it looked catchable to me, however I was pounding 16 ouncers at the time. If what you're saying is correct, I agree, but I remember watching it a few times and cussing a lot. I'd like to see a screenshot.
Had to look at it again tonight.
Looks pretty catchable to me, especially if a defensive back wasn't going for a piggy back ride.
was this photo taken with a potato???
I don't recall it being that close but if this shot is legit then I stand corrected. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. We won the game. Be happy.
It was taken with a Polaroid. No way to edit those. And yes, I'm happy.
His left arm came down on Bucky as the ball arrived, which is why I think they picked up the flag. However, what the ref couldn't see as easily from his vantage point was the right arm that was tugging on Bucky well before the ball getting there. Technically, it was passing interference, but I ain't mad at the ref for picking up the flag.
They were acting like it was already over his head but I guess they don't know Bucky's athletic ability.
He is 6'-7" you know.
He was 6'7" at the snap. We're not sure how much he grew while running his route.
Bad call.
I thought it was the right call. I don't think that ball was catchable. Doesn't matter. We won. Let's talk about something different.
Yeah, the targeting rule pisses me off when it is applied to a good form tackle, not a cheap shot. Maybe I'm old school, but it seems like it applies to hits that are deemed too hard. I guess if the Nebraska LB had slowed down to accept instead of deliver the tackle blow, it would be fine and dandy. As a former defensive player, I've yet to see any of these calls go against a 240 pound RB ramrodding a 180 pound DB with the crown of his helmet. Also, have injuries gone down since the institution of these rules? Yeah, maybe slightly in terms of head and neck-related injuries, but probably more leg injuries. This isn't touch football, so if we can't accept good, clean, yet hard tackling in TACKLE football, then maybe we either need better protective equipment, or just have a touch league for those who want to play without the hitting. Seems like it would be more of an injury risk to defenders trying to execute a tackle knowing they have a 'strike zone' to make a tackle, with anything too high or too low getting flagged.
I think the bigger risk than good, hard form tackles are the horse-collar type tackles where the players' leg(s) are rolled over, which is when we see the horrific leg injuries. Those hits are NOT the type that should be taught in organized football (more like street ball), and should be outlawed from the game IMO.
The answer to why it was upheld... Ron Cherry. I didn't get to watch any of this game, but my dad did and he said that the officiating was awful. I bet a lot of people are envious of Dadi for getting to hit Ron Cherry.
....intentionally, I might add
I was going to say, "Don't start that argument again", but looking at the gif, I have changed my mind. I previously thought it was unintentional, but I have changed my mind. He clearly turns his head and looks right at Ron Cherry's hand before he hits it. How he didn't get ejected for that is beyond me.
He wasn't targeting the hand so he was safe
Ah, withdrawn. We're lucky he didn't get penalized for that...
If nothing else, he was intentionally a dumb-ass....should have been ejected by Frank
Dadi gave him the business right there
Seems like UCLA is getting these calls their way...
See Zumwalts 15 yard penalty on Logan Thomas that should have been an ejection here...
I guess I'm in the minority, but I did see a helmet-to-helmet contact there, which does seem dangerous. However, this does seem mainly to be due to the receiver lowering his head, though, which is tough luck to the defender, but still falls within the purview of the penalty and goes against him.
All the more reason to teach better fundamentals and to understand where the "strike" zone is or whatever they call it these days.
All the more reason to write a better rule, in my opinion. If the helmet to helmet contact is brought on by the offensive players carelessness, there is no reason to penalize the defender.
If the rule is set up primarily to penalize defenders for vicious tackles, then it benefits the offensive kid (short term) to lower his head and take one for the team. The rule should prevent these hits, not provide incentive for them.
I used to pitch when I was younger. I hit a few batters on wild pitches, but only once did I hit a kid in the head.
I threw a fastball over the middle of the plate. The batter squeamishly turned and buckled right over the plate. A "middle-of-the-belt" pitch met him right in the head as he fell backwards into the strike zone.
Technically that's a strike (he did get his base that day. Nobody gets upset with a little league ump for that call)
That happened to me too, but it was a curveball that the kid ducked into.
To play devil's advocate for a minute, you can't really blame the refs for those calls so much as the current climate in football. With the release of the Will Smith movie "Concussion", I'm seeing stories and debates everywhere over the violent nature of football and head injuries. It looks to me that the refs, both professional and collegiate, are in a position of having to basically walk on eggshells when it comes to making calls like this. They seem to be erring on the side of caution which is arguably a good thing. Still, having a player ejected, especially a young kid in a college game for what is basically a marginal and clearly unintentional infraction is ridiculous. In my opinion the rule itself needs to be looked at and adjusted. I think the refs are just doing the best they can with the half-assed rules they are given to work with.
The current climate results in the rule and officials on the field are taught to throw the flag when in doubt...that's fine.
The screw-ups are in the booth review. It's either an intentionally dangerous play worthy of an ejection or it isn't...rarely a difficult call.
I've seen worse calls. He clearly came in high and had first contact face to face. Even if the receiver hadn't lowered his head, it would have been in the neck area and still targeting. I don't necessarily agree with the rule, but in this case I can see why the call was made by the rules definition. Bottom line is the defense needs to stay lower.
yeah lets take out their knees. No brains in the knees.
Incentivises making helmets to be so big as to be unable to put a shoulder in and make a textbook tackle.
I always thought it was the crown of the helmet thing. If the crown of the helmet makes other than incidental contact.
people tuck prior to impact...it is an involuntary reaction
the rule is written to prevent players from trying to take other players out with a head shot and using the crown of their helmet as a weapon. that's what the booth review is trying to determine. if the booth official is reading fine print and reviewing minutiae to decide if a hit meets a technical standard, thus leading to penalty and ejection, they need to get new jobs
It has nothing to do with the crown, it's the targeting point. You can't target the head and neck area, which he did. This wasn't a case of a running back lowering his helmet to waste level, his midsection was fully exposed for a good form tackle and yet the defender went high.
I will say again that I'm not a huge fan of the rule, but this tackle broke that rule. And the replay has little room for discretion. The replay was basically put in place to overturn an illusion or egregious call. If contact is clearly made in that no-no zone, it won't be overturned.
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)
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
These indicate less risk of a foul:
Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders
Wrap-up tackle
Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact
Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play
HINTS FOR PLAYERS
Don't lead with your head
Lower your target--don't go for the head or neck area with anything
Tackle: Heads-up and wrap-up
I wish I could give you more legs for the research. However, my opinion hasn't changed. The defender targeted the head and neck of a defenseless player. I would consider him defenseless because he hadn't established himself as a runner yet. Similarly, if he had lost the ball, I think it would have been ruled an incomplete pass rather than a fumble.
If I'm in charge of making the rule, I would have a much more severe definition of targeting and defenseless. But if I was officiating that play under the current rules and emphasis, I'd make the same ruling.
The fact that you and I interpret it differently is proof that the rule sucks as written.
"The fact that you and I interpret it differently is proof that the rule sucks as written."
yeah, I can go for that.
i saw both players make contact above the facemask...they both ducked; and i did not see an "apparent attempt that goes beyond...".
The rule is poorly written and horribly and implemented. If there is doubt, the official on the field is supposed to throw the flag. On the flip side, if there is doubt, the official in the booth is supposed to overturn the call. Which is the opposite of the normal review rule, where they stick with the call unless there is evidence to the contrary. Which then brings in the personal dynamic among officials, who don't want to show each other up. They are probably staying in the same hotel, ride sharing, working other games together, etc.
I just want to say how nice it is of them, to name a bowl game after our legendary Defensive Coordinator.
Air Force had their starting safety ejected today for targeting. Receiver turned as he was being hit and the guy made contact with his head. Seemed like a normal football play without intention to hit him in the head and Steelhammer got ejected. Yes, that's his name, which is awesome. The call was ridiculous in my opinion.
Also, an LSU linebacker just made a tackle, lowered his helmet and took the crown right into the helmet of a TT player, in front of the ref. No call and the LSU players celebrated a big hit.
It's fine they want to protect the players but there has got to e some consistency.
Terrible call on Steelhammer...hit the other guy in the shoulder...wasn't even a hard hit
LSU guy didn't hit the TT guy in the head either
This one against Texas Tech is probably the worst targeting call I've ever seen.
wow