There are three basic traits that league commissioners and their officiating managers want to see in their crews. Professionalism, game management, and consistency. When I was with NASCAR, David Hoots and the tower staff made every effort to be consistent – not perfect. Consistency means that the game is fair, and competitors know what's expected of them during the event.
The ACC officiating this year has been anything but that, and the recent meltdowns of Narduzzi and Fisher are just moments where the frustration has reached the public eye. There are a LOT of illustrations I can pick from this year – pass interference, holding, ineligible downfield have all been called inconsistently in games – and not just in games played by Virginia Tech. Let's take a look at the targeting rule and application in the Duke game. This a great, high profile example.
If you need a primer on targeting, check out this post from earlier in the season.
The call against Edmunds is correct, by rule. It's also the exact situation I mentioned, where the booth initiated the targeting call during the dead-ball injury time out. There needs to be some discussion at the NCAA Rules Committee level to address situations where the defender is attempting legal contact and the offensive player initiates the contact in an attempt to make the ubiquitous football move. That's the case with Edmunds, and it didn't matter because the rule itself has no "wiggle room" for officials. That's where the statement in Rule 9-1-4 makes it clear that "when in question, it is a foul."
The hit on Virginia Tech TE Chris Cunningham stands in stark contrast to Edmunds'. The intent of the Targeting rule is to protect players from unnecessary blows to the head. The Duke defender turns his hips, crouches, and explodes into Cunningham. The first point of contact is the head.
That's EXACTLY the type of hit that's supposed to be flagged. Crouching and/or launching into the player are specific indicators of targeting. As with Edmunds, there was a dead ball period immediately after the hit. There was plenty of opportunity for the Replay Official to look at this and buzz Ron Cherry.
And therein lies my Key Point here for The Key Play. Inconsistent officiating extends beyond the on-field crew all the way down I-85 to Greensboro, North Carolina. Those of you that follow me on Twitter know I'm passionate about officiating. I'd much rather explain the nuances of why a particular call was correct than criticize officials en masse. The ACC has a bunch of good people on the field in stripes, but the system in which they are operating is absolutely broken.
The time has come for independent review and grading of sports officials/crews, perhaps in all the top-tier college sports.
The tools are there. The system being used for instant replay provides a wealth of synchronized HD video and should be improving the overall consistency and quality of officiating. They added the 8th official last season, and have expanded and centralized replay. So why are coaches and players not seeing increased consistency? The ACC makes no bones about the fact that there is a very low turnover of on-field crews. Perhaps it's time to rethink that philosophy. The players, coaches on the field and sidelines have to earn the right to be there every week. So should the officials on the field, in the booth, and in Greensboro.
Comments
Your stills aren't conclusive enough evidence to say it is targeting. You need definitive proof.
Video replay makes it very clear.
Agreed
I've reviewed three angles from a separate HD system but don't have access to HD I can capture from. I will gladly update the OP with higher quality if/when I can obtain it.
It's conclusive. Did you watch the game? If you did, you saw the replays that showed your definitive proof.
Why does this post need definitive proof? 1) I think it has definitive proof, and 2) he's just making a point and using those photos to illustrate it. He's not trying to get the guy convicted in court. He was simply showing that the refs missed a clear targeting call earlier in the game, and I think he made his point pretty effectively.
not for targeting. when in question, it is a foul.
Good point. And it's pretty definitive to me considering Duke S Deondre Singleton (#33) is 5' 11" and Chris Cunningham is 6' 2" so it is impossible for him to make helmet-to-helmet contact with without launching. In the pictures referenced above, you can see the defender crouch and launch toward the head/neck area of Cunningham, which is textbook targeting. I don't know how much more definitive you can get, but like you said it doesn't even have to be definitive. He should've been ejected.
It's not impossible at all for someone 3 inches shorter to make helmet to helmet contact without launching.
Nevertheless he did launch and it absolutely should been targeting.
Ok, it's not impossible for their helmets to make contact. It is impossible for someone 3 inches shorter to make helmet-to-helmet contact with their helmet ending up being higher than the receiver's helmet without launching. The point still stands.
The point does not stand unless you assume the players remain in a static prone position.
But they don't remain static. It is entirely possible for a player a foot shorter to make helmet-to-helmet contact without launching if the taller player has, say, bent over to catch a ball.
Please .... you are arguing a hypothetical where his argument is to a specific play .... where..... Cunningham is running upright, hands down, after the ball has already passed. This is a textbook case of targeting a taller upright receiver by a shorter db who has obvious intent.
On the play we're talking about, did the taller player, say, bend over to catch a ball? Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
He made a broad statement that he had to have launched because one guy was taller. The two player's heights was totally irrelevant to this particular incident and is incorrect more broadly.
He simply launched. End of story.
If you watch the replay, after the hit while the training staff is tending to Cunningham, they show the Duke defender. He turned his head and you can clearly see the mark on the crown of his helmet (above the logo) where Cunningham's facemask was hit. The ACC blew it, again, by not calling this one.
Good post and good idea!
I agree with your general premise. I do think there is so little consistency in terms of calling targeting.
However, the hit on Duke. As far as I can tell he hits Cunningham high in the chest. To me it doesn't look like first contact is the head (on either one). It looks like shoulder into chest.
But I do think it was an unnecessary hit that could have been called as unnecessary roughness.
That's a great point, and I was on the fence initially (during the broadcast) myself. Take a look at the call against Gaines earlier this season. The hit on Cunningham is really, really close but in 2 the 3 angles I've seen, the crown of the helmet appears to make contact just a fraction (1 video frames) before the shoulder to chest. And I go back to the point that if there's a question - it's targeting. I think the hit on Cunningham is much more in line with the intent of the rule than Edmunds.
I freely admit that the HD, time-sync'd video used for IR is a big advantage. Ultimately, that's why I'm saying there needs to be external, independent review. Nobody seems have confidence in the current system, and that's a sad state of affairs.
I don't know the rule exactl, but targeting doesn't necessarily mean helmet to helmet correct? Aren't there like three parts of targeting and only two need to be checked off? Intentional malice/overaggressiveness, defenseless person and helmet to helmet?
No (impossible to determine), not necessarily, and also not necessarily.
I posted the full text of the rule here
So basically they need to improve on improving?
I know he wasn't the one making the targeting call, but Ron Cherry is the worst. He is the poster child for terrible ACC officiating and I hope that we don't have a game called by him for the rest of the season.
He really can be bad at times. I do however wish he'd been calling our game against Pitt. There's no way he would have let Narduzzi act like a spoiled child on the sideline without at least warning him.
No one gives Ron Cherry the business.
I will never pass up an opportunity to tell this story, so apologies to anyone who's already heard it.
Back in the day, a certain official gave the first "giving him the business" call, in fact against our own Bruuuuuuuce during a Bills game. Fast forward a couple decades, and that official is the head of officiating for the ACC, assigning Ron Cherry to this particular NC State game. Long story short, Cherry accepts a bet of a full game's pay to make the same "giving him the business" call on national TV if the opportunity arises.
So yes, Cherry did that on a bet, and made about 2 grand doing so.
You might want to check the decade quoted if you are referring to Bruce Smith playing for the Bills in the 70's.
Whenever it was, that's not the important part of the story. Although, yes, after further review that's a less than plausible time frame.
never let the facts get in the way of a good story...
Play is giving TH the business.
So wait, officials betting on games! Isn't this illegal? just sayin'
Not the outcome, just a certain ridiculous call -again if the opportunity arose. Maybe not the most professional move, but not illegal.
Here's the NFL call:
*deleted
Somebody did today.
http://thespun.com/college-football/watch-referee-ron-cherry-got-knocked-out-in-nd-usc-game
According to Hokiesports.com, (http://www.hokiesports.com/football/stats/showstats.html?18478) the Pitt-VT officials crew were:
Referee: Johnson, R.
Umpire: Wooten, M.
Linesman: McGrath, K.
Line judge: Graham, T.
Back judge: Hendon, B.
Field judge: Clougherty, C.
Side judge: Safrit, M.
Center: McCreesh, T.
So if we see these guys again, know what we could be in for.
Actually, Ron Cherry is the only one I trust anymore. He may not always choose the most precise words, but he tries to be as clear as possible in explaining his calls.
He's not the one who did Duke-Miami last year nor our Pitt game this year.
Agree, he's a good ref.
Everyone hates him, so this checks out.
Personally, I bemoan his reffing when I see he's assigned to our game because I know we're gonna get some weird explanations, sounds system issues (he can never seem to figure out his mike controls), and officiating signals that are more disjointed than Charles Barkley's golf swing.
LMAO! That is f#$%ed up in so many ways!
He blew his whistle yesterday with his mic on. It hurt.
Sir Charles giving that golf ball the business!
BTW, his swing doesn't look like targeting; while he obviously means harm with his first 3 downswing attempts, in his last attempt he is clearly trying to pull up.
Anybody else see the fumble that got reviewed in the Kentucky vs Georgia game? It was obviously a fumble, booth reviewed and called it not a fumble, SEC central replay booth reviewed it and overruled the call and made it a fumble.
Wait... there's little turnover for refs? The targeting rule I know is new, so I give them sort of a pass there. But some of these refs have been around for years and they still can't figure out what PI is (see Pitt)? If you're someone like Ron Cherry (not to call him out specifically he's just very high profile) who apparently has been around since forever at what point does some of this become inexcusable?
So agreed, some level of accountability needs to be added, because the status quo appears to not be working.
That's exactly my point. Given the low turnover, and the wealth of video / resources available now, there really isn't an acceptable excuse for being where we are with regard to consistency. All the ACC coaches have a right to be upset - consistency is important when teaching linemen how to block, the secondary how much contact is ok, etc.
There's a lot of data to sift through. I'm currently doing a statistical analysis of flags in the ACC this year, with some qualitative components. I truly believe there needs to be an independent grading system, with the officials held accountable. As a basketball ref, you'll be doing a lot of middle school games if you don't learn from your mistakes. Not that they aren't fun - but they aren't Duke - UNC.
And that's exactly what I saw Fuente telling Ron Cherry after the targeting call: "What the f*** am I supposed to tell my kids?"
Having watched college football for so long, I will admit that I am a little too familiar with Ron Cherry, but I never honestly thought he was biased...just not always right. Now for bias, I refer you to Lenny Wirtz, my least favorite forever basketball ref who obviously disliked the Hokies and wore his bias on his sleeve. Football refs have so many other officials involved, and with replay to clean things up, it would be really hard for one guy to affect games in a biased way. Fans and coaches will forever gripe about the refs, but I wouldn't do their jobs on a lucrative bet.
I would give you 15 legs for the Wirtz reference if I could. Growing up as an ACC basketball fan, Wirtz' bias was the sole inspiration for my journey into officiating. Wirtz disliked any player not wearing a UNC or Duke jersey.
Officiating sports at any level is challenging, but it's less difficult than freshman engineering calculus. The rules and case books provide a wealth of information, and the rest - just like any other job - boils down to being passionate about, and perfecting, your craft. As I said in my OP, these are largely well-intended guys working in a system that appears to be failing them. Whether it's quality control and education, a lack of accountability, or just a loss of that passion - it needs to get fixed. These coaches and athletes deserve better.
We always called him "Lenny the Wirst".
I'd much rather have the rules that college has with targeting than the shit that happens in the NFL. After everything that happened that week with the countless of articles backing up his claims, Cam Newton gets lit up twice with helmet to helmet hits in the pocket today with no call. This kind of epidemic is getting so bad it's getting tough to enjoy the NFL anymore.
I don't even watch the NFL anymore. I watched a documentary on cats last night on PBS instead of the game.
Cats are pretty cool. Clouded leopards are the most ancient of the cat types, and they can even turn their back paws backwards a bit to help them climb down trees. Some guy was trying to catch a glimpse of snow leopards and found Pallas cats, which look hilarious. Some other guy is part of a pride of lions. Cool stuff.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I helped my fiance choose a layout for our wedding website instead of watching the NFL yesterday. I think that says something about how much entertainment value the NFL provides these days.
.... Maybe it says 2 things.
13, that will bank some points for future fishing, hunting or whatever guy type trips you want to take!
I'll chime in here and agree, as a big Panthers fan less than a year removed from a Super Bowl run, the NFL isn't getting it done for me anymore. Even when Carolina sucked, I'd be searching for streams to watch their games every Sunday. Not happening anymore. I tune in if they're televised, sometimes. But then I get bored because every game has become a slog of the same 3-4 commercials every 4 minutes and reviews upon reviews... and then the issues like with Cam just make what little gameplay there actually is, infuriating.
I'll still catch the highlights though, gotta see what amazing plays the linebackers made each week.
They played clips of Cam getting smacked around the head play after play during the Bills halftime.
Speaking of, look up an offsides Roger Sherman taking out Dan Carpenter's legs in a field goal attempt; there was no roughing penalty called. Since the medical staff came out to briefly check on Carpenter, they ruled he had to sit out a play. After spiking the ball, the official stands over the ball until five secs are left, causing his subsequent made field goal to be called delay of game (about 10 seconds after the snap).
The NFL is not immune to missed/blown calls, nor to bad rules.
Here's a link to the Referee explanation and the NFL's Dean Blandino comments. Blandino admitted they missed the roughing. I'm sure that's a great consolation prize to the Bills. The way the 2nd half went - those 3 points plus a FG in Q4 and that's a completely different game.
I've seen a lot of F**kery in my day, but that one is really, really near the top of the list. There's just something about Monday night and the Seahawks.
BTW, I watched much of the Alabama-LSU snuzzer and counted at least 3 targeting, helmet-to-helmet tackles that were similar to Edmunds ejection vs Duke. I believe the Edmunds hit caused a fumble and possibly a loss of consciousness, but in a top SEC matchup its called "good defense".
It's been called "good defense" in a number of top 10 match ups. If Edmunds is guilty, then Clemson should lose a player every game. FSU should have lost more than 1 in their game vs Miami (how do you get a tooth knocked out unless there's H2H or a punch thrown?).
The biggest issue that I have with the majority of targeting calls is the purely random likelihood that it's called. Once it's called, the rules are so inconsistently applied that absolutely anything can be construed as a violation and then there's a "and if there's any doubt, it's targeting". How in the heck does any targeting call get over turned, with that as criteria?
I don't want to see any of these kids get hurt. But the current application of the rules doesn't provide any additional margin of safety, since the players have no idea of what is or isn't targeting except in the classic case of launching at an unprotected player.
Agreed, but with a different reason as to why. It provides no additional margin of safety because it is reactive rather than proactive. The entire philosophy of the penalty is not to make anyone safer, it is to punish an offender for what is often an unavoidable consequence of playing football.
If my statements lead you to believe that your reason is different, then I did a poor job stating my case. I think we're going to have to agree to agree on this point.
Completely agree and I am tired of this.
feedback@theacc.org
go ahead and blow up that email. I am sure the coaches will be in discussions that will yield more productive results but if enough fans start speaking then they will ultimately have to listen.
See my comments in another thread about upcoming changes with ACC refs. Again take it with a grain of salt.
Possible ACC Ref Turnover
I want to add in here - there seems to have been a serious, noticeable downturn since the departure and eventual passing of Doug Rhoades, former ACC Coordinator of Football Officiating. Doug was former FBI Human Resources and brought a lot of training and evaluation ideas to the table. Current coordinator Dennis Hennigan is an attorney from New York, with 30+ years experience. I wonder if the good ol' boy system kicked in with Doug's departure.
I checked with two #sauces and they aren't aware of any overhauling plans for ACC officiating.
The ACC needs metrics to measure the quality of officiating. Without understanding what the refs are doing wrong, there's no way to improve.
I propose that an additional 'official' (preferably from a third party) be in a booth each game. After each play, this person assigns that play to a category:
After each Saturday, this data is compiled and analyzed:
Once the ACC understands this, they can clearly define the expectations for how a game should be officiated.
Are you accessing my research prematurely, LOL?
These are scarily similar to what I'm evaluating, although I'm primarily looking at flags thrown (inc. declined, offsetting, etc.). I don't have video access to fully evaluate the non-calls as thoroughly as I would like, although I'm working on it. I don't think the independent grading has to be done at game time - the instant replay system and raw video is time-sync'd and excellent for this purpose. I'm absolutely certain that independent grading across the board is necessary, or else you wind up with inconsistency in non-conference games (i.e., the Battle at Bristol or ECU last year).
I'm looking at two specific enhancements as well:
The context is important - flags could legitimately be thrown on almost every play. It's about understanding the dynamics and context and providing a fair, consistent platform for teams to compete.
I'm going to cross post my two comments from the other targeting thread because I think it should be heard.
This was the right call, and all of the Hokie fans around me at the game that were giving death threats to Ron Cherry for it should be ashamed of calling themselves Hokie fans.
Edmunds made helmet to helmet contact, knocking the running back out -- which caused the fumble. That right there gives enough explanation on how the penalty was enforced, why he got ejected, and why Duke got the ball back.
The new rule this year that it can be reviewed in the booth also was applied in the Texas A&M-Alabama game where the Aggies got an interception, there was a hit as well. The refs had to review something else on the play and noticed the targeting as well. There is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do this.
As someone with 5 concussions in their life and noticing the effects when I'm 18, I'm fully in support of protecting these players. Stop bashing the refs, they're doing their job. They got this one right, and even if they missed one earlier in the game, that doesn't mean they should let this one slide.
I will agree with all of you that it is a crappy rule as written.
/on soapbox
However, the people arguing that it shouldn't have been called or the refs are terrible need to take a bigger look at the ramifications of concussions before complaining that our team got screwed a little bit because a running back ducked his head.
I am unable to hold silverware steady in my hands and I'm 18. If I drink alcohol at any point for the rest of my life, I run a very high risk of dying (long story, but if people are more interested in hearing about it, I'm willing to elaborate.)
This is more about the safety of the players. The conversation on how it could be changed to avoid the automatic ejection is one that should happen. But the conversation in this thread that some people are making about how it shouldn't be flagged for something are wrong and need to understand what concussions can do to somebody and their body.
/off soapbox
It sucks that a pure chance interaction -- as some people have accurately described it -- takes one of our better players out of the first half next game. But until there is a better rule to account for those types of interactions, these refs need to continue to call it this way and fans need to understand that is ok.
Are these calls missed sometimes? Yes. It does NOT mean that when they get it right that people should complain.
I do not subscribe to the concept that fans, coaches & players should just blindly accept a badly written rule with no question, just because: concussions.
The rule as it is applied today is grossly unfair in almost every fathomable way.
Most everyone on these boards arguing against the current rule has argued on those merits. I cannot recall one person saying, essentially "bugger the players' health".
So no, we do not need to understand that calling the rule the current way is ok. Accepting that means nothing will change for the better.
Kudos to every coach and player and fan that demands a better rule.
I am, in no way, saying that we should blindly accept the rule. In fact, I'm all for a change in the rule where there can be some lighter punishments for incidental contact.
But as of right now, if it gets called, they're doing the refs are doing their job and protecting the players from something extremely dangerous -- concussions. If you don't understand how dangerous concussions can be, you need to take some time and figure it out.
Seriously? You're just going to sit there and accuse me of ignoring the health risks of concussions? Could you be any more condescendingly blind to the words I wrote?
Seriously?
First off, as someone who has had their own "bell ring" more than once, I am extremely lucky not to have the complications you have suffered and I hope that medical science can find treatments to help you in the near future. I do however think that the rule as written and as applied is giving too much focus to the defenders as the automatic initiators. Playing db in that situation, TE was using perfect technique to try to stop a rb headed downhill at full speed. Go low to attack his momentum and base. That the rb lowered his head to prevent that attack cannot be ignored when analyzing the cause of the helmet to helmet collision. Indeed, the rb was the one who made the last adjustment of helmet attitude just prior to the contact and just as easily could have caused TE to sustain a concussion. I don't think anyone feels that the idea of a rule to protect defenseless players from someone launching a hit at the head is a bad idea. I think the rank and file here feel that there is room for discussion on how to limit concussions without unfairly ejecting players who had no clear intent to cause harm and who themselves might actually have been the victim of a move by the offensive player that put them both at risk.
From what I'm reading the vast majority of comments are focused on very inconsistent application of the rule. As long as football is a willful contact sport, there will always be concussion issues (our own engineering school has proven that you can't design equipment that truly prevents concussions).
With that said, I believe that most people are all for player safety. In this game, we saw unintentional helmet to helmet called targeting (though if Edmunds did the age old "see what you're hitting" and had attempted to wrap up, it's likely that helmet to helmet could have been avoided and no penalty called). We also saw a classic targeting hit on Cunningham that wasn't called. It's this arbitrary application of the rule that bothers the vast majority of fans.
Upon Further review we were Ron Cherried!
I really do wish the NCAA would use full-time officials. The game is under so much microscopic scrutiny - analysis, slow-mo replay from 3 different angles on every play, HD video showing the most minute detail - that, as mentioned in the OP, we really are putting these officials in a position to fail. There's money and demand for a full-time officiating team on every game. Imagine if these guys (and gals) could devote 40 hours a week to film study, rules analysis, discussion with fellow officials, etc. to ensure the highest level of competence and consistency on game days. I damn near need to change my pants just thinking about it.
Won't happen. It's one more thing that would make the NCAA look more like a 'business' and less like 'amateur' athletics.
There are full-time staff at the NCAA, who cares? Just because the players need to retain "amateur" status, why do the people who run the games? Besides, with how replays are run through Charlotte, I'm pretty sure there are some full-time employees looking over the replays anyways. I see no compelling argument whatsoever that the NCAA couldn't hire full-time officials because of amateurism. The officials get paid to work the games, this would simply be a way for them to devote more time to improving the games they work.
Other issue here is that with the good ole boy network, many of the higher "tenured" officials have day time jobs that bring in a boatload more money than their Saturday ego fill. Still a nice check though, as the latest data I could find says the average college official in 2014 made about $3000.00 per game or around $40,000.00 as a part time job one day a week.
NFL officials average is about $173,000.00 per season but it is considered a full time job as you suggest above, requiring 35 hours a week of rules review, video replay, etc but their gym workouts also count towards these hours. The base salary for these folks is about $80,000.00 a year as a first year official to show you the range.
College basketball officials start small, in the $400 to $1000 per game for lower tier games. The higher P-5 conference games however can see officials make around $3000 per game. Now for the questionable part, as officials essentially fill up the slots for these games as top guys gets dibs on what they think they can handle. In 2013, the top ten officials averaged calling 81 games in a college season with the top guy at 93 games. Average salary for the top 200 officials in college basketball worked out to about $150,000 for 50 or so games but that doesn't cover health insurance or retirement moneys as these officials are all considered independent contractors.
You've done it now - brought in college hoops officiating. The top officials get to run all over and can push themselves to their physical limit in order to maximize earnings. As with football, there's no clearinghouse of data on officials that perform better. I would argue that again - there needs to be independent evaluation and grading of officiating. The NBA's Don Vaden has done a great job increasing accountability among their officiating crews. Put a ball in play at the wrong spot, the official gets fined. I called a number of games with his son Chase, an up-and-coming D1 referee that IMHO does a great job. The NCAA simply pushes it all off on the conferences, including the Quality Management portion.
There's no perfect solution, but I'm hopeful that some good ol' VT statistical analysis will at least help push the discussion forward. Football, then basketball!!!
There was a hit towards the end of the FL St./FL game yesterday that resulted in a fumble that I thought would surely be called targeting after the replay. It looked to me like Florida's defender made forceable contact to Francois' head/neck area with his shoulder (announcers said shoulder to shoulder, but didn't seem that clear to me). Francois' wasn't defenseless, but my understanding is that the runner needing to be defenseless has been deemphasized in the latest implementation of the rule. Didn't find a video of it on YouTube, but it's about 2:42:30 into the video on watch ESPN with about 4:40 left in the 4th quarter. Can someone explain to me why it wasn't called targeting during the fumble replay?
This pretty much sums up the theme of my OP - they're not even consistent in their inconsistency. There's been more of an outcry about officiating this year than any I can remember. I saw the hit, and based on my knowledge of the rule, especially given the language - this easily could've been called targeting either on the field or in the booth. Good officials always go back to the language and intent of the rule - when in doubt, the hit IS a targeting foul.
This inconsistency makes it impossible for coaches to coach...
Apparently there were none of the required indicators (see rule and notes 1 and 2 below). I didn't think it was targeting when I saw it.
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). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
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
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward 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, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
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.
A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.
I'll go ahead and add a post here about the spot in that other game... Spotting the ball is ridiculous. 99% of every game is inexact, but on critical plays the sport treats the spot as perfect. In the case of Ohio State, I thought the spot on 4th down, game on the line, was pretty generous. Camera angles are tricky, though and it's really easy to fool the Mark I Eyeball.
GPS is not exact enough to use that for spots. But there is a lot of tech out there that could potentially be used to improve this area of the game. Instead of worrying about LED down markers (really - were we getting that screwed up routinely?), let's see what we can do about improving the spots throughout the game.
NASCAR is using pretty radical tech to officiate Pit Road nowadays. Granted, NASCAR is typically in no more than 2 locations per weekend, whereas there are many college games on any given Saturday. But the tech is out there, so let's hope one of the conferences makes a move to find that "better way".
In the words of Bill France, Sr. - We are all here for one thing, that is - to improve the present condition. The answer lies in this room here today...
Until they have a Committee over seeing College Refs in all sports such as Football and Basketball and holding them accountable , there will not be just Officiating and calling the rules correctly. Start taking their money as in fines, game day pay IF you continue to Not do your job . Then the system will be better. Nothing is done to Officials , they get by doing What they have for years. Loss Of Money and Jobs will get things done. Bet On It, but the ones that gets the "breaks" knows this and will not want a Fair System. look no farther than the the the ACC