Granted, targeting is a relatively new phenomenon in football, but the call on Stroman in the 1st half on Saturday is one of the most inexplicably bad calls I have ever seen. Luckily it was targeting and, as a result, was automatically reviewed but it's clear that officials have no earthly clue as to how to apply the rules. Heck, even if there had been head to head contact by Stroman on the receiver it was clear that Stroman was in position to make the pick and was the "offensive" player at that moment.
I'm seriously concerned about official's ability to properly call these penalties because it can have a huge impact on the game both due to the 15 yard penalty and the ejection that accompanies the penalty. What say you?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
At full speed, field level, back of the endzone, and seeing the ECU player's helmet go flying...I can maybe see how the ref thought it was a chance at targeting. Clearly, from our view on the tube and replay, it was as far from it as one could be. I'm just happy as hell they can take the penalty yardage away now in conjunction with it not being targeting.
I'm thinking in terms of player safet,y that it's probably a good thing that they can remove the ejection and penalty all together. That makes it easier to for the ref to just call anything close and not have a dramatic effect on the game if it gets reversed. I'm sure there will be a bad call at some point that doesn't get reversed unfortunately, but way better now that they can pick up the penalty.
Obviously Stro was going for the ball and his head wasn't close to the other players head. I was livid at the time, but the fact they can take away the penalty completely makes it a much different situation than years past.
I mean, the refs are told that if they think it could be targeting no matter how little of a chance they have to throw the flag. Granted this was absolutely stupid 2 years ago when after review the 15 yards and first down still applied even though the ejection and therefore the targeting was removed.
Since now when the review deems it not targeting everything happens as though no flag was thrown I'm perfectly OK with refs using it on iffy hits now.
The only problem with calling it automatically is that I can envision plays where the camera angle might not give you enough to overturn it completely, so you get stuck with the call.
I'm willing to accept this, for the sake of erring on the side of player safety.
I'm willing to err on the side of player safety, but I'm not going to accept ejecting guys who did absolutely nothing wrong because a ref sucks at his job and the camera crew didn't know where the ball was. That's an incredibly slippery slope. If this call was upheld because the CBSSN B-Crew didn't catch it, the message sent to Stroman is that he has no right toward attempting an interception because there would be the possibility the receiver might initiate contact with you with his head, getting you ejected.
Typically, every skill position player has a camera on them every play. You can find the camera angle that followed Tyrie Cleveland the whole time on the last play of Tennessee/Florida. It's not like there's only one camera following the ball. This is true now more than ever, because the TV crews know the refs are depending on multiple angles of every play for review. So the risk of not having an angle to establish point of contact on a tackle is slim.
That's great for the games that are televised, or in stadiums that have the ability and resources to provide multiple cameras & angles.
But the rules apply whether the cameras are there or not.
Players are going to be tossed from games (and already have) on bad targeting calls.
How many potentially game-changing non overturned bad calls are we willing to trade on this rule as it is currently worded and called?
With all the streaming ESPN is doing, are there really that many games that don't have camera crews assigned? Seriously, go down the list on WatchESPN on a random Saturday. There are some pretty obscure games that get streamed. I don't think a lack of camera crews is nearly the obstacle today as it was when the NCAA rolled out targeting just a few years ago.
But those streams get some really, really bad camera crews. And its not like they're going to be getting any better with the NHL and NBA seasons getting ready to start up, soon.
So what's the proposed solution?
I'd rather err on the side of needing proof to show an ejection should be called rather than needing proof a player shouldn't be ejected. Right now in college football, we're at a stage where if targeting could be the call, you're guilty until proven innocent. I want that reversed to being innocent until proven guilty.
Call the personal foul, then go to replay. If you can prove there was targeting, assess the additional penalty and eject the player.
In effect, that's what they already do. That why there's automatic review on all targeting calls, specifically because ejection is at stake. I get the symbolic difference in what you're saying, but in practice, the way you propose doing it is going to look exactly like the current method.
The only way to really change targeting would be to eliminate the ejection protocol. I'm not down with that. There's simply too much concussion and brain injury research that shows something has to be done about hits to the head in football. Targeting isn't a magic solution to that problem, but it's better than the alternative.
I think the difference is, if it's a borderline case, then as the rules currently stand, the refs would err on the side of ejection, because that's the call on the field.
I get that. But that's specifically the symbolic difference I mentioned in my last comment. It would look exactly like the current system. Basically it goes from being automatic ejection unless the call is overturned to being automatic ejection if the call is upheld. In practice, there would be no discernible difference. If we keep ejection for targeting, what we have now is what the system is going to look like, even if we make changes to the wording regarding at what point ejection is triggered.
Its a small difference, but a very big one that can legitimately impact a game. Right now, we err on the side of the call on the field standing unless you can irrefutably prove otherwise. I want that call to always default to a player not being ejected when the video evidence cannot show proof. But the burden of proof on the video evidence itself. Right now, we make the call to eject a player, and then go to the video to try and prove he wasn't guilty, and I personally think that needs to change.
Yep. This is pretty much exactly how I feel.
Since the advent of replay, the process itself has been geared one hundred percent toward making sure the on-field officials are wrong as seldom as possible. It's why the delineation between "call confirmed" and "call stands" exists. And I never really had a problem with that line of thinking... until targeting became a thing.
It's football. Guys are gonna take big hits. Players' helmets are going to collide. This is the understood contract that players sign when they strap it up (and that fans sign when they watch, for that matter). With that said: I'm a proponent of increased focus on player safety, and I've decided in the last couple seasons that I'm fine with an official throwing a flag if they even suspect an illegal hit. And if they look at the tape, and a kid launches himself & shows clear intent, or comes in with his crown lowered (dangerous for all parties), he should be ejected. But the process has to default to the players' interests, not the officials'. Throw a flag on an iffy hit in order to check the tape to see if targeting occurred. That's fine. But as it exists, the flag represents a verdict, and the replay process is basically an appeal.
There's that saying: What's the best thing you can say about referees? Nothing. I don't want to see kids miss out on opportunities (hs/college) or paychecks (in the pros) in favor of making sure the officials don't get their feelings hurt.
Why not call "potential targeting", and then go with the video evidence?
You only get the penalty or ejection if it's proven. Innocent until proven guilty.
The incentive not to do it is still there.
This is honestly pretty much what we've gone to. To be honest, the best change they could have made to targeting was the one they made: allowing the 15 yards to be wiped out if the call gets overturned. Now, throwing a flag for targeting is basically the ref telling the booth, "Take a look at this." I get the argument that it's basically guilty until proven innocent, but those replay officials know what's on the line, and as soon as targeting is called, the ball is in their court. While they still will use the confirmed/overturned language as with all other penalties, targeting is basically going to be the one call where the replay official is going to make the call based on what he or she sees.
The difference is that if it "stands", the benefit of the doubt should go to the player, not the targeting call.
This is the best explanation that I've seen for how I feel. The language is important, 'Stands' meaning, basically, there's not enough to overturn it, BUT, had it gone the other way, there wouldn't be enough to change it to the call that was made on the field. So with targeting, we look at it and if it's 'probably not targeting, but maybe', the call stands and Stro gets tossed. It should be the other way. If targeting can't be confirmed from the video, no targeting.
If you wanted to make it really difficult for casual fans to understand and remember, go with 'stands' results in the 15 yards and automatic first down, but anything other than 'confirmed' (so 'overturned' and 'stands') does not end with the ejection of the player.
I also really think league offices or the NCAA or whomever should take a look at all targeting that occurs in the second half of games to make sure that holding a player out of the 1st quarter of the next game only happens when it's a definite targeting. They've got all week. Don't be lazy.
have the option of asking for a booth review for targeting instead of throwing a flag. in other words, there's no rebuttable presumption of a targeting penalty unless proven otherwise.
The booth can signal down to the field on any play in which a flag was not thrown if they believe there may have been a missed targeting call. This was part of the rule change 2 years ago.
true, but not really my point.
if the ref throws a flag for targeting, the rebuttable presumption is that there is a penalty with a player ejection, unless video proves otherwise.
i think the targeting penalty should not carry that presumption, i.e., it is only targeting if the booth confirms that it is, not that it isn't.
while there is video of most hits, there are exceptions. Illinois asked for a solution in this scenario, and I think this is a viable option.
Are we carrying the presumption of indisputable video evidence from reviewed plays into targeting review? That's the standard for overturning a call made by the officials, i.e., a fumble, touchdown, catch, etc.
The review for targeting is not overturning a call, it's challenging a penalty (without charging the defense a timeout to do it.) Like I said above, targeting is one of the few penalties that can even be reviewed, and it's specifically for the benefit of the player who got flagged.
honestly, I don't know the answer (re: presumption), and that is the weakness in my position. but if there is no presumption, there is no need to identify an offending party
my point is, there is no need to flag a specific player to accomplish the undisputed objective of player safety.
simply call for a review. instead of, "targeting on #25, the play is under review"; the official simply says, "the play is under review for targeting".
nothing is lost. safety is in no way compromised
edit: so I checked, and the presumption is in fact, there is a penalty unless there is evidence to overturn it. booth has the same three options it has on other reviews, i.e., confirm, stand, or overturn the call.
they considered a change to replace "stand", with a 15 yd penalty but no ejection. that change did not pass.
the current rule is to err on the side of safety and to throw a flag if there is doubt. if the video evidence exonerates the player, no foul. if not, player is ejected.
so my recommendation stands. throw a flag if there is doubt. enforce the penalty if it is confirmed by video evidence. obvious targeting will be punished. inadvertent contact will not. and this will accomplish 100% of the stated objective
No, it wont. The purpose is to eliminate the unsafe technique which increases the change of brain trauma and injury later in life. If you remove the penalty for inadvertent contact you remove it's effectiveness. It doesn't matter if you were meaning to cause targeting, you caused it whether it was your fault, the victim, or some random guys funneling you to them.
The players need to be in control of their actions and just saying there was no targeting because the victim tucked doesn't solve anything. Players are still not paying attention to their body positioning and hurting other people by performing risky actions.
officials ejecting players for unconfirmed close calls makes the sport pointless and invites corruption.
the point isn't to eliminate unsafe technique, it is to ban deliberately dangerous plays and attempts to injure. the sport requires top athletes playing at top speed to block and tackle each other. if it was all about technique, it would be wrestling
if the sport is too dangerous, ban the sport.
For your ban the sport comment, that is something that is discussed on a regular basis for youth and pre-college aged kids. My high school was talking about disbanding the football team a few years ago because of how dangerous it could be and the long term effects.
Unsafe technique leads to dangerous plays. Deliberate or not. If you don't pay attention to what the guy your tackling is doing after you commit and end up hitting him in the head full force you get a penalty. It doesn't matter if you meant to get him in the chest but he tucked. It's happened before and will keep happening.
This rule is a necessary "evil" if you want to keep watching this sport. Because as we learn more about brain trauma we're going to find more and more stuff linked to football in particular and if nothing is done to limit it there wont be football anymore. It doesn't detract from the game to make sure players have a brain instead of mush between their ears in 20 years.
Thank you for double checking on that (the fact that targeting reviews are handled the same way as other booth reviews: the penalized player is presumed guilty unless proven innocent beyond a doubt by video)
The presumption of guilt on a play that could change the outcome of a game, or even two games (if in 2nd half) is farrrr too much impact by officiating.
I would be ok for the call "stands" ruling to result in keeping the 15yard penalty but remove the ejections. I think we will get there, but it will take a lot of bad calls in big games first. Which is wrong.
And honestly, with the way targeting now reads, throwing a flag for targeting basically is requesting a review. There is no other penalty that triggers an automatic review, and most penalties can't even be challenged for review. The automatic review process on targeting is an acknowledgement that this is a huge call, and it's important to get it right.
Exactly this. Everyone is turning this into a judicial issue - "presumption of guilt." That's literally every penalty ever thrown in a football game. You don't get due process in a football game. At least the targeting review is an attempt to make sure a game-altering call doesn't go the wrong way, and the most likely of life-altering injury risks doesn't go un-analyzed and un-punished.
And I think what's getting missed is out of all penalties called, targeting is the one where you actually do get something akin to due process.
i agree with 99% of your posts but I think you are missing this one. there is no harm in having a requirement for booth confirmation for an ejection, zero.
as long as the rule reads, "call the penalty it if its close", which it does; and an indeterminate video review results in a player ejection, which it does; then some players who do everything right are going to be needlessly ejected from a game. not just penalized, but removed. there is NO benefit to that circumstance. from 2013-2016, over 28% of the calls were overturned. officials on the field are making a lot of mistakes
if the NCAA is truly serious, then they won't put a time limit (before the next snap) on booth reviews. i see no reason for an official in the booth who spots an otherwise removable offense on film from ejecting that player whenever it is discovered, even if it is significantly later in the game
There is some benefit, and that is to change the way the game is being played to be safer. If enough iffy tackles stand as targeting eventually it will be coached out. Thus resulting in many less iffy flags since the action that can be flagged is rarer.
The point I'm trying to make is that of all the proposed changes I've read in this thread, I've yet to see one that would actually result in any significant change to the practical application of the rule. The process on the field would be indistinguishable from what we currently have. I'm just seeing a bunch of semantic arguments.
28% of targeting calls got overturned. That's specifically why the penalty goes to instant review. Thankfully, the NCAA made the right decision and allowed the entire penalty to be overturned, not just the ejection. The only other change I can think of to placate the critics of the existing rule would be to remove allowing the call to stand, but what portion of the 72% of targeting calls that weren't overturned were allowed to stand rather than being confirmed? Is this a legitimate issue, or just another semantic argument? (Not rhetorical; I honestly don't know the breakdown.)
And if you remove allowing the call to stand, what do you do where the video is inconclusive? Make the default action to be overturning the penalty? For a rule that was implemented through a growing concern for player brain safety, that seems counterproductive to me. And in practice, bad targeting calls are just going to get overturned anyway, like happened with Strohman and with more than 1 out of 4 targeting calls anyway.
If we implement any or all of the changes suggested here, I imagine we'll be in exactly the same place we are now as a fanbase: disagreeing with just about every targeting call against us, and wanting targeting calls against our opponents on anything close.
the recent change allowing the penalty to be overturned was a big improvement. i looked for stats on the "stands" call and couldn't find any but i think we are talking about a truly minuscule number of instances. however it was apparently enough for the NCAA to consider a rule change last Feb/March.
still don't know why my change would do any harm. two people have commented that they think ejecting players as a result of bad calls will make players be even more careful. my experience in public policy administration is that creating resentment never provides a positive result.
when a ref throws a flag, no one knows what the purpose of the flag is until the ref announces it or gives a signal. what is the down side of simply announcing that the play is under review for targeting? frankly, i think player safety would be improved if more plays were reviewed and players on both O and D equally feared the call.
Wasn't able to watch the game yet. Did they actually overturn the personal foul against Stroman? I know they rejected the horrible targeting call on replay.
There was no personal foul called. It was just targeting. That's an important distinction, a penalty can be personal foul + targeting, with only the targeting subject to review, or it can be a simple call of targeting.
On the radio, Lazer said there was a personal foul.
He was incorrect, or at least, imprecise. Targeting is a personal foul, but it can be called as "personal foul, with targeting" (separate violations, only the ejection half of which is reviewable) or "personal foul: targeting" (one foul occurred, can be completely overturned, yardage and ejection).
Oh come on meow. This is an absurdly reductivist statement:
I see everyone talking about making the rules as FAIR as possible. Using the words "presumption of guilt" does not mean "judicial". It accurately describes the practice of throwing the flag when in doubt, and nothing more.
Adjusting the rule as they have so far has made it a less unfair rule than the original writing. It can be made more-so, in my non-legal opinion.
How about this for a rule?
Since the rule is about player safety:
When in doubt, throw the flag.
Penalty must be UPHELD via video review in order for the penalty to be enforced.
If video review shows the offensive player deviating course or head position to initiate contact that meets the definition of targeting, the penalty shifts to them rather than the defender, even if the offensive player is hurt.
If video review isn't available or is inconclusive, the penalty is enforced only if the targeted player is hurt.
The first half of your comment is exactly the way it's done now. Basically verbatim.
The only problem I can think of with reversing the call to affect the offense would be with a QB slide. If a defender is committed to a tackle simultaneously with the QB giving himself up, that's no fault contact. Otherwise, if the ball carrier leads with the crown of his helmet, sure, call it.
No no no no no no no no no. Never ever ever base a flag off of injury, unless you want to introduce NBA/soccer levels of flopping into football. I shudder to think what the game would look like if this precident were set.
That's not how it's done now. And the penalty is often assigned to the defender in the current system. A review would make the system fairer, as the penalty could be assigned to the offense if intent is found.
The main point is that the penalty should only be enforced if upheld.
The penalty is only enforced if upheld, especially now that the 15 yards can be wiped out by review.
The penalty is enforced if it's not overturned, even if the player doesn't get ejected.
It could easily be done the other way, where the targeting flag/penalty is ONLY enforced if confirmed by the video. It's a unique call, so the enforcement is going to be unique no matter how they do it.
For me, it's a better way to handle it.
"not overturned" and "upheld" are perfect synonyms of each other. The word you are looking for is "confirmed", as in "the ruling on the field in confirmed". When the ref says "the ruling on the field stands", he is saying that the video evidence was not 100% conclusive either way, so we will uphold the ruling on the field by default.
I'm not looking for a different word. I'm suggesting that because officials want to call targeting for any situation that MIGHT BE targeting, that this call be enforced differently than other calls. The refs are free to call it if there might have been contact but they're not sure, but this particular call can only be enforced if confirmed by video review. Under my proposal, there would be no "stands" for targeting. This would give the benefit of the doubt to the player/team being accused of targeting, not the ref.
The whole point of the penalty is to keep players from being hurt.
If there is no proof a penalty happened (inconclusive video evidence = no proof) and a player wasn't hurt, why should a penalty be enforced?
Your opinion seems to be guilty first, and only not guilty if non-guilt is absolutely proven. That goes counter to any concept of fairness.
Pretty difficult to ascertain the possibility of traumatic brain injury on the field. The player safety issue is one aimed at not just the short-term stuff like broken arms and legs, but the accumulation of potentially severely damaging incidents over the player's lifetime. There can be no standard for "is this player injured as a result of the play?" Maybe he's fine today, with a bit of a headache, and 20 years from now his brain is atrophying.
Fine.
Flag football it is.
Really, that is the end result of this. If the goal is zero potential for future ailments stemming from in-game contact, then we need to be penalizing ALL contact.
Literally every play could result in brain injury that isn't immediately apparent.
The only way we have to guess as much now is if there is violent contact to the head. We don't include violent contact where the head connect to the hard ground, or a sudden shift in vector on a clean tackle, either of which has a much higher that zero chance of bouncing the brain off one's skull.
I just don't see any logical reason to presume guilt on the defender in this particular potential brain injury, and not include all other scenarios into some sort of illegal behavior.
And let's face it, at some point we are going to have to do something about all these athletes who get debilitating arthritis, or reduced mobility in any other way when they transition to non-football life.
Helmet technology has gotten so good over the last few years that they provide reasonable protection against most head impacts. The one area where they don't is a collision with another helmet.
But hey, comparing safety measures to flag football? Haven't seen a straw man that good since the last time I watched Wizard of Oz.
My fault for not explaining it. Oh, wait, yes I did:
Do all brain injuries matter, or only those covered under this targeting rule? Your current opinion about what a reasonable risk constitutes is a fart in whatever prevailing wind is blown by the next 30 for 30.
All brain injuries matter, it's just the hitting technique used for the basis of targeting has a much greater chance at causing brain injury to all involved.
The odds of that happening are extremely slim. The crews will not lose track of a ball that would lead to a targeting call on any sort of frequent basis. For targeting to be set up it kinda has to be obvious where the ball is going to the players and by that the camera crews.
The Stroman call was never going to be targeting, the one ref saw what might have been targeting from his angle and threw the flag. The other refs saw that it wasn't and the replay showed it was not targeting. For a clean hit to be erroneously upheld as targeting it would have to be so borderline or the refs absolutely terrible at their jobs. At that point there is going to be a lot more controversy than just one targeting call.
I was pissed at the time but I'm guessing the refs didn't see the contact from a good angle and just saw a helmet go flying. Threw the flag to make sure he didn't miss something egregious.
It was overturned correctly; no harm no foul.
Not attacking you, but have you ever been an official? I understand why the flag was thrown; even how inexplicable it may have been. Those guys are being taught to throw it when helmet contact is made, and with it coming from the back judge, he may not have seen the attempt to catch the ball by Stroman.
I am willing to bet a donut that the flag came from an official towards the line of scrimmage. That's what I recall watching the replay and the direction the flag came from when it landed.
Flag came from behind the play to the the left...
On the grassy knoll.
It came late from the field judge. If you watch the replay the back judge was in a perfect position and snapped his head the left with an "oh shit what did I miss" look when he saw the flag land.
Good officiating comes from being in the right position and good timing. That was not very good officiating on both accounts.
Yes.
But they reviewed it and got it right in the end.
So, ref confuses Stro's ass with his head? That ref should definitely not pursue a medical degree. He's bad enough at his day job.
I really hope our WRs can get over this habit of dropping perfectly thrown passes like this. If the ball bounces off your numbers, it should be a friggin catch.
mostly /s, but COME ON STRO, HOLD ON TO THE ROCK
May have been difficult to concentrate with that guy trying to insert a helmet into his ass.
next thing you know, that boxing glove will find a new use in practice...
[[ removed ]]
Yeah I have a little buzz............................
[ mod edit: don't link porn to TKP ]
That awkward moment when u link a porn site on TKP
At least he didn't embed.
(Either the site or the boxing glove.)
It was made up! Complete fiction.
it was closer to targeting by the receiver against Stro-Man
There video of this anywhere? Was golfing.
Look up.
Don't see it, must be blocked at work.
to be redundant, i guess it's their way of asking for a booth review
that Stroman got his hands on the ball first, should have been enough to not throw it...but they did
major pet peeve....when the ball is in the air, i think the refs forget that the ball and right to the ball doesn't belong to either team. that the QB prefers that one guy catch it doesn't impart any particular priority for the offense. neither player is more or less defenseless than the other and there is no receiver or defender, just two guys going for the rebound
No clue since I do not have an obscure sports channel like cbssn but over the radio it sounded clean ;)
I was livid when they threw the flag on this play - had it been upheld, it would have certainly been the worst targeting call in the history of targeting.
On that note, there was talk that Joey Slye's hit could have been targeting - guess that's what you get when you choose to return the kick instead of taking the touchback. (ODU if you're listening, just cherish it and take the touchback)
While I agree that we've seen a hit like that get called targeting, Slye was coming in low and the ball carrier lower his head to make H2H contact with Slye. Which brings up the discussion of targeting being called both ways. If the ball carrier lowers his head to contact with the defender, he should get the penalty, since he's initiating the contact. Years ago, ball carriers were never called for facemasking because it was deemed a D only penalty. Good to see that change. Would like to see targeting changed too. The defender needs to have a level at which they can attack the ball carrier (e.g., hip level, like Slye was on that play) and not have targeting called, regardless of H2H.
I think that it was a good no call, but def don't expect to see it go that way very often.
There was a targeting call a couple years ago, where a defender went at hip level to tackle the quarterback (I wanna say it was Ole Miss's QB) and the QB started to slide after the defender had started to go for the tackle. It was clearly a helmet to helmet hit, with the defender initiating contact with the crown of his helmet, but the targeting flag got picked up for exactly the reason you state. Of course, this was back when the 15 yards still stood regardless, but maybe an incidental/intentional distinction could be implemented.
Completely agree.
Burnop brought it up on Virginia Tech Sports Today about the targeting talk - was not sure if it was something the ref said to Joey after the play as a "watch it or I'll call it next time" comment, or if it was a result of players on the sideline just giving him shit. Either way - it was awesome seeing him knock the piss out of someone.
i was surprised Slye's hit didn't get a booth review
In hindsight, yes, and I was furious when it was called. But I had the benefit of seeing it through the TV perspective. Given that the flag came from the back judge, I can understand it now. All he saw was the ECU receiver disappear behind Stroman (from his perspective) and an ECU helmet came flying off, he probably had reasonable belief that Stroman's helmet or shoulder had slammed the receiver.
Correct upon review, and that's the point of the rule, to overturn when the officials get it wrong.
The problem is that if the camera angle is bad, you can get stuck with a play that "stands".
I recall this being a real problem at Bristol, and certainly goal line plays where the ballcarrier is swarmed by blockers and defenders are often difficult to get on camera.
It's going to happen, but replay is fairly reliable. In any event, referees are instructed to call targeting if the hit is in question. In this case, a helmet bouncing across the field with no context was enough to draw a flag. The CBS-B league crew managed to get several angles of the play.
We still see games held up with no flag to review hits for targeting, which bypasses the on-field officials completely.
The occasional whiff by the replay booth is going to happen, but we're miles past the "I'll know it when I see it" calls being made by the guys on the field when the rule was first implemented.
I would still advocate a "penalty assigned on positive confirmation by review" rule. Gives the players the benefit of the doubt.
What if they implement a Flagrant 1 and Flatgrant 2 type penalty for targeting like in NBA. The official calls targeting if he/she sees anything remotely as possibly being targeting...and that prompts an automatic review. The review can then decide no targeting (no penalty assessed), flagrant 1 (unnecessary roughness, but not targeting...15 yard penalty), or flagrant 2 (targeting...15 yard penalty and ejection).
That was a brutally bad call, and I'm very glad they overturned it. That's the way replay should be implemented, so I get it. I also get the idea of throwing the flag with the intention of reviewing and determining whether or not it should be picked up and reversed via replay. But that said, if for some reason they didn't have a good camera angle on it, the call would have stood and Stroman would have been ejected for nothing more than making a play on an interception when he was the one with the cleanest path to the ball.
Horrible when it was originally called, worse on replay, and only made good when they were able to nullify it all.
Thank goodness they actually had decent angles on that replay, since those camera guys were . . . not good. They got faked out way too easily.
Welcome to cbssn.
My wife wad of the opinion that the reason the review took so long was that the replay official channeled his inner Red Foreman with a long, "Dumbass."
I think it might have been because the American Athletic Conference crew was trying their hardest to make it into a believable penalty. Anything they could do to help ECU and the conference get ahead in their quest to be part of the "Power 6".
I don't get the downvote... The AAC has made it a point to push a "Power 6" brand to try and force their way into the national discussion....
ECU has been making that push for decades, within the state. In the early 90's, they even had a bill in the NC legislature that was going to force NCSU and UNC to play them in football and basketball, every year (or every other, I don't recall for certain). I believe that the football series that they have with UNC and NCSU was an attempt to appease the lawmakers from the eastern half of the state, without forcing basketball games, too.
They made an actual push last year to be in the Big 12. They were serious about it but I'm pretty sure everyone including the Big 12 just used it for happy hour joke material.
If they wanted to be serious, they wouldn't have fired Ruffin.
How in the hell did we get sucked into fulfilling the ACC requirement to play those bastages every freakin' year? Was this part of the deal to get us into the ACC? /s (maybe)
And it seemed to me early on in the game that we weren't going to get any benefit of the doubt calls.
We're talking about making a play on the ball or contact with head(s) / shoulder(s), but does the fact that Stroman was AT SHIN LEVEL have any bearing on this discussion?
Not really, since the reciever's head was also at approximately shin level.
I think Adonis Alexander or Terrell Edmunds had a targeting call last year roughly around Shin level
Horrible call from any angle. Stro was trying to catch the ball and had an angle on the ball, not break up the pass with an angle towards the reciever. Officiating is certainly tough, agreed. Hypothetically....If two guys are going for the ball and happen to hit helments, how's the penalty called? Always on the defense? A running back can lower his head and plow for yardage and is apparently exempt from any penalty.......I never thought that this was right either.
Yes bad call, but thankfully the video vindicated us. Also, sometimes there is a little homecooking...well what ever it was, I'm glad Stro remained in the game especially with Adonis A, Suspended.
This is the bad side to video replay in general. While video replay ultimately helps us get more calls right than wrong compared to life without it, refs have learned to use it as a crutch (i'm talking about on all calls, not just targeting) which has made on the field calls progressively worse over the years. I'm not saying video replay is bad, I'm just pointing out that it has had a negative effect on the initial calls on the field over time. If I had to pick 2 calls in articular refs seems to have gotten much worse at getting right on the field: Catches and Fumbles.
I'd argue that this is actually the good side of video replay. I like the fact that the ref can make the call out of an abundance of caution and let the replay booth sort it out. So many plays happen so fast and the official on the field doesn't always have a great view of what actually happened. I'd like to see them treat other penalties like chop blocking or pass interference (within reason...this could get out of hand quickly if overused. I'm thinking specifically of instances where the WR and the DB are both fighting for the ball and you're not sure if it's offensive or defensive PI because their bodies are blocking the official's view.) the same way. If you thought you saw it, but you're not absolutely certain, throw the flag and let the replay booth confirm the call.
^^This^^
I think that replay has made officials very lazy in the art of "call-making". They don't watch the plays like they used to and they miss much more stuff than they used to miss (at least it seems so).
I doubt that. They're probably missing about as much stuff as they would have before replay reviews. It's just that now when they do call something wrong or miss something there is no guessing. If they miscall a fumble on the field you can slow the video down 10x to see it to confirm, whereas before people would just argue about it after the game.
Since they all get reviewed, I actually prefer they call it if it looks at all like it could be targeting. I'd rather they overturn 100 plays like this one than even one person get knocked out cold on a non-call.
I'll just leave this here:
(still pissed....)
That's not targeting. Probably not even a late hit.
Honestly curious, why do you think this? Late hit and targeting are two entirely different penalties, one can exist without the other. Also at that point Logan is by the rulebook 100% a defenseless player and unnecessary forceful contact is directed to the shoulder/neck/head area.
This may change your opinion
Reread the rule from that site:
Targeting doesn't protect a player's shoulder, only their head and neck. They hit on LT is clearly to his shoulder.
The late hit comment wasn't an equivalency to targeting, it was me saying not only was it not targeting, it was a completely clean hit.
Crown of Zumwalt's helmet hit LT3 in the jaw slightly before he hit LT in the shoulder. He led with the helmet, and should have been ejected.
Nope. Never agreed with the umbrage TKP took over this hit. Of all the cheap shots LT took from opposing defenses, this wasn't one of them. That's a clean football hit. I would have been furious if this hit was ever called targeting on a VT defender.
Yep. This is a perfectly fine hit. Led with shoulder. The "helmet-to-helmet" aspect is a perfect storm of LT3's height, the defender's height, and Logan simply being in the worst possible position to get hit in (opposing vector, caught up in the air, body relaxed).
Yes, that position you described is one that constitutes a defenseless player. He led with his helmet, aimed high, and hit a defenseless player as hard as he could. Whether or not you want to agree that is targeting it was clear in the context of the game that it was an unnecessary and dirty play.
led with his helmet
No, he really didn't. He led with his left shoulder. Just because their helmets collided doesn't mean he speared.
aimed high
Logan Thomas is 6'6". Zumwalt might be 5'10". (He could have aimed a little lower, sure.)
and hit a defenseless player
Probably the most conflicted I get about football. By the (newly instituted) rule, you're right. But I have no idea why it applies to some players/positions and not others, no idea how to standardize the enforcement of it, and therefore no idea how defenses are supposed to play defense given that referees are now reaching for the flag to call targeting almost reflexively (something that I'd be fine with IF they'd change the targeting "penalty" (i.e. a verdict) to a targeting "check" (i.e. "let's go to trial").
as hard as he could
Football.
I'm missing something here. They are roughly the same height. If this were the case, we'd see 1,000's of "perfect storm helmet-to-helmet" every week since a huge number of players are 5'11"-6'1", but we don't. LT's size means anything that contacts his head could be avoided, regardless of D player's height, unless he's diving head 1st.
No. My point is predicated on the fact that they aren't even close to the same height.
Zumwalt (5'10") hits Thomas (6'6") in the chest/shoulder with his left shoulder. Thomas's head (which sits above the top of Zumwalt's head) careens forward at contact and collides with Zumwalt's helmet - which is underneath Thomas's head at contact because Zumwalt is eight inches shorter than LT3.
Jordan Zumwalt is 6'4". If he was 5'10", there's no way he could hit LT like that with LT being upright. If he were that short, he'd have to seriously launch at LT's head to hit him that high.
The play was a dirty play and a classic example of the kind of hit that the targeting rule is supposed to penalize.
Read the stats on the wrong Zumwalt. I stand corrected.
Re "dirty play" - so he should have hugged him and put him down softly? Would you have been happier if he aimed 10 inches lower and collapsed his lung? Maybe lacerated a kidney? LT3 released the ball, what? .25 seconds before impact? Until that moment, he's a ballcarrier.
Helmet to chin literally knocked LT out and put him in concussion protocol. That hit, on a QB, has literally been illegal for more than a decade, probably close to 2 decades (i.e., long before targeting penalties were put in place). I can't understand why you want to justify a hit that's been illegal in essentially the entire time that Zumwalt had played the game. Football is a rough sport, but players shouldn't be allowed to use their helmet as a weapon.
And my point is that he didn't. He led with his shoulder. Like I said before - just because their helmets collided, that doesn't make it targeting. Ask Terrell Edmunds.
(Aside: if you look at Terrell's sizzle reel, both the hit at Duke (targeting, ejected (how did you feel about that hit?)) and vs Arkansas in the bowl game (reviewed, reversed) are prominently featured. Not sure I'd have a hit that got me kicked out of a game on my sizzle reel, but I digress.)
I was as pissed as any of us when that Zumwalt hit happened, but after seeing it several times? In my opinion, it's not targeting. In the officials' judgement, it wasn't either.
as daveinop points out below, it def qualifies as targeting. The helmet head rule doesn't stipulate "it's ok to put your helmet into the QB's chin if you manage to make contact with the shoulder 1st"
RIght. And yet, not a single official threw a flag.
The rule doesn't legislate intent either, and yet some hits are reviewed and "confirmed" (Terrell's Duke hit) while others are reviewed and "reversed" (the Arkansas hit). Mitigating circumstances like the targeted player's head level (still defenseless?) are clearly being considered. If it were black & white, Terrell would have been kicked out of the Belk Bowl without question. It's clearly not black & white.
If we start kicking players out of games every time there's helmet-to-helmet contact during a tackle, the games will only last about 3 quarters - or until both teams run out of eligible players. Of course I'm being a little /s. But seriously, what's the solution? Because it can't be "if a tackle occurs and the players' helmets collide, eject the defensive player"...
Dude, I'm done. It wasn't an arbitrary accidental H2H. He literally launched at LT's head. It's targeting. Just because it didn't get called doesn't change the fact that it's targeting.
We're just seeing it differently, then, because all I see is a leading shoulder.
In any case, I enjoy the back & forth. Good talk, have a string of legs
Actually, they did. We got 15 yards for unnecessary roughness. I fail to see how that hit qualifies for that penalty but not targeting. It's as if all the officials conferred and went, "I think that was bad, but I don't know how, so let's award 15 yards."
That was why I was so upset by the "non-targeting" call. 15 yard penalty for the hit (unnecessary roughness)...but not targeting. It was either a clean shot or targeting.
he launched (both feet off the ground), it is textbook targeting
"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
This describes targeting as including actions besides just hits with the helmet, some of which don't involve helmet contact at all. A shoulder to the neck of a receiver can be targeting. An elbow drop to a quarterback's head could be targeting.
Also, note the definition of "defenseless player," which is important.
A hit on a kicker who's in the middle of a kick will be judged differently than a hit on a player who's trying to make a tackle, for example.
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
You can leave your feet, as long as contact isn't initiated at the head or neck. We do this ourselves all the time. Seriously, watch just about any tackle Mook makes. Our defense hits like a truck, legally, below the neck area of the ball carrier.
This was a clean hit to the shoulder, with some incidental helmet to helmet contact.
I slowed the gif above to see if there is a better view...
It clearly shows
- he lead with the crown of the helmet
- he launched himself
- he made contact with LT's face mask/jaw with his helmet
- LT's head never "whipped" down to hit the helmet
That was targeting.
Who was that ucla dickhead's name?
Edit: Found it.
Edit II: Slowed down shows it all. Fuck Zumwalt. I hope he is selling used cars at Enterprise.
Retaliation right after Logan ran over Myles Jack.
Someone said this dude has to go!
Here's the point of contact, or at least as close to it as I can get on that gif:
Blurriness aside, it looks like initial contact to the shoulder/clavicle, subsequent helmet to helmet contact. Hard to determine the defender's body posture, but he looks like he's turning his shoulder into LT.
This isn't targeting. It's almost precisely as high as the defender can go and still be a legal hit, but it's still a legal hit.
It's letter of the law targeting. Supporting evidence is that you don't get a concussion from a clean hit there.
That's just inaccurate. I would go as far to say most concussions come from clean hits and even more come from contact with the ground.
I thought it was clear I was referring to the hit in question, where his head doesn't smack against the ground. I'll make sure to be more specific next time.
You said supporting evidence is the concussion itself and that's just not necessarily true. A person can be concussed without any contact to the head. A violent collision well below the chest could still cause a whipping motion and concussion.
I personally think that this one was targeting but it is way closer to borderline than some fans want to admit. I actually liked the call on the field. The refs did not think the point of contact was targeting but did find the act unnecessarily rough.
you don't get a concussion from a clean hit
Sorry, but that's simply not true.
You're referring to an impact force concussion, where the head is struck/strikes something.
You're forgetting about impulsive force concussions, where the head is jolted (by an impact elsewhere on the body) but does not suffer blunt force. I've heard it called a "seat belt concussion" - the body stops short, but the head does not.
I've had 3 concussions - 2 playing football and one in a car accident - and didn't hit my head in any of them. All 3 were of the latter variety.
#1 in this photo Zumwalt's helmet is hitting LT's facemask, so this photo does not show his shoulder hitting LT's shoulder first.
#2 even if his shoulder hit first, it would still be targeting because Zumwalt's helmet makes direct contact with a defenseless player's head/neck area while Zumwalt is launching himself upward, helmet aimed at LT's head. Just because LT's shoulder gets in the way a little bit doesn't mean the rest of his actions are excluded from the targeting rule.
It's literally an uppercut to LT's chin with Zumwalt using the top of helmet instead of his fist. Completely unnecessary and dirty hit and the kind that the targeting rule is trying to eliminate, and in facts makes illegal.
You just proved targeting. The rule doesn't state anything about initial or subsequent... here are the relevant parts (from davinop post above)
"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.
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
Also, note the definition of "defenseless player," which is important.
A hit on a kicker who's in the middle of a kick will be judged differently than a hit on a player who's trying to make a tackle, for example.
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass."
It doesn't matter that he hit Logan shoulder to shoulder. He put his head down and made contact with Logan's earflap with the crown of his helmet while leaping into the tackle. That alone is textbook targeting, and we've seen NUMEROUS ejections throughout the college level for that exact type of play. He even launched himself into Logan, which you can towards the end of that play when his momentum carries him about 6 inches into the air while standing upright.
If he had kept his head up and seen his target, then its a different story, and you have an argument for this not being targeting, but he didn't.
"initiated" is not in the rule. the rule is "make forcible contact".
if the defender steps on the player's foot before hitting him in the head, it is still targeting
Specifically, the rule is "target and make forcible contact." The word target excuses incidental contact to the head and neck. As Too Druck to Funk pointed out elsewhere, if all forcible contact to the head and neck was targeting, every defense in college football would run out of eligible players before the game ended.
I provided the definition and highlighted the areas that are clearly satisfied. The aspects of implementing the rule you have raised (i.e., "initiating" and "incidental") aren't in the rule, and weaving them into a bit of a circular argument that one is okay if you don't do the other and the other is okay if you don't do the first thing, to me is not compelling; especially since both aspects (forcible contact to the head and leaving his feet) are not in dispute. So unless Thomas wasn't defenseless or Zumwalt was making a tackle, a block, or was playing the ball, there is nothing left.
If you are saying that officials try to look into the intent of the potentially offending party and will occasionally excuse certain contact that meets the technical definition, I agree. And I think they have improved implementation of a rule that is very important for player safety. But that is also part of the inconsistency in the rule and in my opinion, further justification for eliminating the "stands"/ejection option for the booth.
At the time, it was the worst call I had ever seen. Upon review, that was confirmed. I understand the when I doubt call it and let it be reviewed...but there was no doubt. Stro was in position to catch the ball. They WR came into him.
Imagine if they didn't have a good review and upheld the call? He would be gone for the next game. That why you've got it right first.
It was in the first half, so we only would have lost him for the rest of that game.
While we're on the topic of targeting and ejections/disqualifications, I've long thought that this rule needs some tweaking. I don't think it's reasonable to make a guy sit the whole next game for a targeting penalty every time. If it's clearly intentional, I say great, make his ass sit. But sometimes, a defender comes in at what should be a reasonable angle, only to get flagged for targeting when the ball carrier lowers his head and gets it in the way. Those inadvertent targeting penalties really should be punished a bit less harshly.
If you keep your face up, as required by the rule, you will not be called for targeting. But the "reasonable angle" excuse doesn't (and shouldn't) apply when the defender lowers his helmet. The point of the rule is to stop defenders from using their helmet to hit someone. If you keep your eyes up, you won't use the crown of the helmet to hit someone, regardless of what the offensive player does.
Not quite:
I appreciate providing the exact rule but I thought my comment was clearly in the context of targeting for helmet-to-helmet contact. If not, to be clear, I was talking about helmet-to-helmet contact.
What I'm talking about is when a defender lowers his head down and away from his contact shoulder to firmly plant his shoulder into the ball carrier's chest, and the ball carrier lowers his head to plow through the contact, creating a helmet-to-helmet hit. In such an instance, the tackler has done everything in his power to avoid the targeting (short of giving up, I suppose), and gets whistled/ejected anyway. If he kept his head up, he'd almost certainly put his helmet straight into the other guy's facemask. I don't remember who, but I thought this happened to one of our guys last year.
I can't imagine we are too far away (or maybe we are already there) from putting force-sensors in the helmet and then just analyze the data. You don't need cameras to see simultaneous spikes on a graph from two helmets colliding. Combine that with numbers from the players and you could have some pretty definitive calls.
"yessir, that spike corresponded with a 'helmet to ass' contact, not a 'helmet to helmet' collision. Go ahead and overturn the call on the field."
Mason Neumann approves of this Message.
I get the defense of referees. Their job is extremely difficult. However, in this case stro had hands out to make a play on the ball. If head to head contact was made, it would not be targeting, it would be incidental contact by two receivers. For me, the worst was not that the ref missed the cause of the helmet flying off, its that he missed the fact that stro had as much right to that ball as the ECU defender.
Nice headline. Are we ESPN now? And no, just based on the fact that it was overturned it wasn't the worst targeting call in history.
Anybody know what the deal with this game is? Usually the entire game is posted on Youtube within a matter of hours, but its been days and it still isn't up. ...by now I've already re-watched the game about 2 times.
I've wondered the same. Could be the network. Most of our games are on the ESPN/ABC/ACC family. Maybe CBS makes it more difficult?
I was wondering about that too.
Maybe no one has obtained permission. The following from the CBS copyright page seems pretty normal.
Viral Distribution
We may expressly authorize you to redistribute certain Content on a personal, non-commercial basis. We will identify the Content that you are authorized to redistribute and describe ways you may redistribute it (such as via email, blogs, or embedded players, or by producing Mash-Ups). We may revoke this authorization at any time. If you redistribute such Content, you must be able to edit or delete such publicly posted Content and you must edit or delete it promptly upon our request. When expressly authorized by us in writing, you may embed videos using the Video Player, provided you do not embed the Video Player on any website or other location that (i) contains or hosts content that is inappropriate, profane, vulgar, offensive, false, disparaging, defamatory, obscene, illegal, infringing, threatening, sexually explicit, racist, that promotes violence, racial hatred, or terrorism, or that we deem, in our sole discretion, to be otherwise objectionable or (ii) links to infringing or unauthorized content, or any content described in (i). You may not embed the Video Player into any hardware or software application, even for non-commercial purposes. As determined by us in our sole discretion, we reserve the right to prevent embedding to any website or other location that we find inappropriate or otherwise objectionable as determined by us in our sole discretion.
Al gore owns the internet. He said it was cool.
Hokie Tapes has it on YouTube.
FWIW, the first quarter ends around 39:50.
"Targeting" beings - 27:57.
Yeah, I saw he had it up about an hour ago.
I'm tempted to watch, but I'll wait till I get to work tonight.
Apparently ESPN wanted to weigh in on the topic of how targeting is called:
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20767556/college-footbal...
So 20.5% over turned last year and 26.7% over turned this year.