I received a few messages surrounding Gaines' targeting call yesterday, so I thought I'd share some quick thoughts with everyone. I'm continuing to keep detailed information on penalties and official performance this year, which I'll share intermittently via the Forum.
The targeting foul called against Houshun Gaines was the correct call, based on the current NCAA rule book and interpretation. He absolutely decleated Boston College's #38, Richard Wilson. The call was immediate, which we should expect. With the current views on safety and the emphasis to officials to protect players, this call is one we will continue to see getting made. One of the NCAA changes for 2016 includes the ability to initiate a penalty for targeting from the booth, even if not called on the field. Prior to this season, the booth could only review a targeting call to see if the guilty party was guilty of targeting. I'm not aware of this part of the rule being used yet, and I can only imagine the ensuing insanity if/when it is applied.
Let's take a look at the exact language of NCAA Rule 9-1-4:
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). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6).
Broadcast media often get the rule wrong on TV. Yesterday, they had more trouble covering Bucky Hodges than the BC secondary. So don't expect them to be accurate in quoting the rule book or explaining a call – even if the producer is trying to do so in their ear. The last part of the rule is really, really important: "When in question, it is a foul." This one statement explains why the majority of targeting penalties are upheld, even when most everyone thinks it will get flipped.
The rule refers to Note 2, which defines defenseless player. In this case, there's not much doubt that #38 meets that test. It's a blind-side block. So let's take a closer look at Note 1, referred to as "indicators of targeting".
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
- Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
- A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
- Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Houshun Gaines' first point of contact was helmet-to-helmet. He didn't lower his head, and it wasn't with the crown of the helmet. Gaines definitely transferred most of the hit with his shoulder at or below the shoulder pad level, but that was not the initial contact. The language of the rule is not limited to the four indicators; there's an element of this left open-ended. The key phrases that matter as indicators are "forcible contact" and "initiating". Approved rules interpretation 10 (X) addresses the reverse of this situation, almost verbatim, stating that forcible contact from the blind side is a legal block on a punt return as long as there is no forcible contact to the head/neck area.
As the loop shows, forcible contact is being made to the BC player's head, and that contact is the initial contact between the players. Not only does the BC player's head move differently in relation to his chest and shoulders, Gaine's own head reacts to the contact. All this happens in the initial few tenths-of-a-second of contact. That's the kind of thing you have to look at sometimes. One might argue that Gaines's intent to make a legal block overrides the targeting indicator, but the degree of force and the location of initial contact are how the officials will ascertain intent.
The call was unpopular, for sure. The targeting rule, and the way it is implemented, make it even more variable than "what is a catch?". As Coach Fuente alluded to post-game, if Gaines goes too low then it's an illegal cut block, and Gaines appeared to be trying for a legal block. That's footballing some days. At least against BC, the discussion of the penalty is more of a footnote.
Thanks to HokieTapes for posting the BC film quickly.
Comments
But launch into a QB like a missile with the crown of your helmet 6 times in the NFL and that's perfectly fine....
Much, much prefer the college rule, even when it applies to situations like this. Hits to the head must be eliminated from football.
I can't disagree with this targeting call. I've seen others I disagreed with, but this one meets the 3rd bullet point criterion from this writeup.
I don't think Gaines had any bad intent, but Gaines should have made a better attempt at hitting him lower. The initial point of contact was the helmet, though the would-be tackler was fully upright. Even though it was a blindside hit, if it had been a little lower this would have been a legal block.
It's unfortunate that he'll miss the first half of the next game, but I have to believe that this rule (and enforcement) will lead to a safer sport and fewer concussions.
I really don't fault Gaines. The speed of the play and aggressiveness that is expected makes this one of "those" football plays. They are going to happen. Sucks for him and the team but hopefully he will get meaningful defensive snaps against ECU!
Like I said, I don't think it was purposeful, but it met the definition.
Feel the same way about it. When I saw the replay, the helmet to helmet contact
was obvious. Don't like to see a Hokie get ejected though.
Fantastic analysis. #Lawyered
I don't have a problem with this being called targeting. I saw the head movement on the replay and knew it'd be upheld.
I'm surprised that wrapping your hands/arms around a ballcarrier's neck/helmet is a-ok.
I saw that a lot the past 2 games as well, IIRC, one of our runners was essentially tossed upside down by his head.
Great explanation, thank you.
I think the biggest problem people have is the inconsistency in the way these calls are made. Clearly, after reading this, Gaines met the criteria. I didn't feel that way yesterday, but I think that reaction was colored by all the abysmally blown calls that I've seen. You know the ones - where a guy clearly launches like a spear, annihilates the other player in the head, and the officials say, "play on." Then you get this, which clearly has no malice intended and is a fraction of an inch away from being 100% legal, get flagged. That's the frustrating part for me. There is zero consistency in targeting calls. I don't know what the solution is, but I hope the NCAA officiating body finds it.
You hit on a great point. That's one of the "rationalizations" the NCAA gave for extending the role of replay for targeting, and empowering the booth to throw the flag if a field official doesn't.
The even bigger issue is inconsistency between conferences, and even across levels of play. I'm still digesting the VT-Tennessee game, but I firmly believe that played a role in Teller's penalties from a Big 12 officiating crew.
I was mildly insane at the Giles v. Narrows game here Friday night because of the number of horse-collar tackles, cut blocks, and helmet-to-helmet contact that went uncalled. Then look at the NFL's officiating of Cam Newton. It all begins with establishing good playing habits at the high school level and having a basic set of rules consistently officiated.
Giles v. Narrows! Is that as big of a game as it used to be decades ago when I was at GHS?
In a word, yes. There were more people at that single game than the cumulative UVA season in Hooville. The train whistle and SuperSpartan are still there, every week home and away. Crowd estimated between 3-4,000 or roughly 1/4 of the Giles County population. I'm continually impressed by the support Giles shows it's HS football team.
I don't like the way this gets called against the player, and then the player essentially has to be proven innocent in order to continue playing.
My preference would be for the play to go into review BEFORE targeting is called.
Essentially the call would be "potential targeting", and then the call would have to muster proof in replay, so the ultimate responsibility would be on the replay, not the official on the field.
You know, innocent until PROVEN guilty. The way it works now is "guilty if suspected", but may get exonerated by the tape.
There are already too many reviews." During the game and the game is already an hour longer than an NFL game. If it's called, it's called, the review can be done later by an impartial panel to see if it is upheld and has to miss time next week. No other penalties are reviewed
If the penalty occurs in the first half, the player is disqualified for the rest of the game. There isn't any way that a post-game review would help there, unless you change the rule. But targeting was implemented because hits like that are dangerous, and players endangering others should be removed from competition. This is one area that review is extremely important, because the stakes are high - called correctly, it removes someone from a situation where they may harm someone or may have already done so. Done incorrectly, it potentially damages a team unnecessarily by losing a player.
Targeting almost always gets reviewed anyway.
My preference would be for the review to confirm the call before it gets made, rather than only as a way to exonerate the player.
Seems to me that the initial contact was with Gaines' shoulder to the guy's upper chest. If his initial contact was to the guy's head, seems like his head would have whipped back much more than it did. Replay honestly isn't clear enough to make the call IMO. I think the call should have stood, but not been confirmed like it was.
Here's a slightly different angle that helped me reach my conclusion. I wish I had access to the HD booth feed for these kinds of analysis - I was spoiled by too many HD camera angles while I worked for NASCAR...
I disagree that this should be a targeting penalty.
From my perspective, this was shoulder to chest impact, with the helmet impact occurring incidentally, and relatively lightly. Indeed, had the block been made "legally", and say 4 inches lower, at that speed you would have likely seen a lot more potentially damaging head movement.
Let's take this whole thing to the ridiculous to explain my problem with the "targeting" penalty besides the ridiculous name it is given as it seems to be predominantly thrown in cases where there was no intent of a hit to anyone's helmet:
Suppose Bucky Hodges is the blocker and stands at 7'10". (Wait for it, this obviously isn't the ridiculous part.)
Now suppose the defender is 5'5". There is damn near no physical way on this play, at game speed, that block can be made legally.
For the blocking player to make contact in a legal way in this sort of play, they would need to essentially duck down, lose speed, lose visibility, and potentially not make any useful contact or worse, get himself injured because the contact at that point is far less under control.
My contention is that the taller the blocker is, the more difficult it is to make any sort of legal block.
I think rules improving safety are good. I think this rule, as written, is bad. No injury occurred, which is essentially enough evidence that the hit was safe.
I think we have reached the stage in some rules where the impetus to "do something" has overtaken the need to do things rightly and fairly.
Agree with all of this. And that shot confirms nothing to me. Like I said, at worst it should have stood as called. It definitely shouldn't have been confirmed.
Yeah that was targeting. No beef from me
It's football, not a pillow fight. We know certain things in life has risks. Driving a car can be fatal, we put air bags in the car not slow ourselves down to a snails pace. They are taking the most enjoyable things about football and turning them into personal fouls. These guys live their whole lives in the spot light and being told how great they are, making millions of dollars in the process. When the lights fade and reality sets in (my body's worn out and I took to many hits on the head) they question their decisions. Whats next? No head shots in boxing? Have to make NASCAR or F1 tracks perfectly straight for 500 miles to reduce crashes? Some things are the way they are cause when we invented them men still wore the pants and everybody understood life isn't perfect. Man up, Play ball. QQ
All because helmets touched does not mean forcible contact was initiated in that area. Gaines shoulder contacted his chest first. I think the BC player should get ejected cause it was his head that whipped forward into our players helmet. It was NOT targeting, just like Danny caught that ball. and its Bullshit.
Well he certainly is living up to his signature
Leg for you sir!
I think it was a good football play. Period. Yes, the explanation "fits" the rule, but that doesn't mean the rule is written correctly or called consistently. Those are different arguments for sure.
Safety is becoming a generic term. If safety was truly paramount, we would be watching some form of flag football.
As topic creator said, this is but a footnote to the game. That is a huge plus. It is a call that did not create a swing in momentum nor influence the outcome. I suppose talking about this call instead of botched plays, false starts, and delay of game penalties is a good problem to have.
Saw a hit on our quarterback earlier in the game that I thought was a much clearer case of targeting, but it was not called. Just want the rules enforced fairly for both sides.
Remember when we got into that discussion a couple years ago when Thomas was "paid back" for running over a LB in a bowl game and there was no foul? That was more clear targeting than this.
The helmet to helmet that got Evans in Bristol?
The blindside block outside the pile that got Peoples (?) in Bristol? The one where they picked up the flag?
Excellent write up and analysis. Totally agree it was the correct call. I love these kinds of posts on TKP.
The way the rule is typically administered, high speed high hits are going to get called, and I think the call in this case is consistent with that.
My beef with the rule is that the player being blocked was looking in a different direction than he was running, i.e., he created his own blind side/made himself defenseless.
Your loop does not ciontinue through the block. I see little head movement on the BC player. Looks shoulder to chest to me. The NCAA once again sucks.