2024 non-GT games thread

[forensicbuzz]

I think you are confusing "leading with -- helmet" and "crown of helmet". If you lead with the crown of the helmet, then the person being hit does not have to be defenseless. In the pictures you posted, the first contact is with his helmet to the helmet of the other player. That is "Leading with helmet". In the second picture, the Arizona State player's head is clearly pushed behind his shoulder pads from the helmet to helmet contact, so it is obviously forcible contact.

Purely based on reading the actual rule, it is forcible contact to the head or neck area of the defenseless player, which was initiated with the helmet of the tackler. It most certainly fits the definition in the rule book. I am very interested in what the explanation of the booth review was in not calling this targeting.

I'm not confusing anything. I agree it's forcible contact. I think you're forgetting the part about the forcible contact has to be beyond that of a legal tackle. That's the subjective part an umpire evaluates. Was the contact forcible beyond that of a legal tackle. I'm not sure the umpire felt it was.

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.

 

[RonJohn]

I'm not confusing anything. I agree it's forcible contact. I think you're forgetting the part about the forcible contact has to be beyond that of a legal tackle. That's the subjective part an umpire evaluates. Was the contact forcible beyond that of a legal tackle. I'm not sure the umpire felt it was.

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.

Which has definitions beneath that. The definitions of going "beyond making a legal tackle" include: leading with the helmet while making forcible contact with the head or neck area of a defenseless player. That is defined AS TARGETING in the definition of the rule. You can't argue that the rule is intended to prevent going "beyond making a legal tackle", and use that as a defense to not make a call that is clearly defined in the bullet points of the rule as targeting. In other words, if something is clearly defined as a bullet point of breaking the rule, you can't then use a general statement to say that the clearly defines bullet points don't fit the general purpose of the rule.

I never saw the replay of the Efford tackle that was reviewed for targeting and declared as no-targeting. However, my understanding of that play is that it was very similar to this play, in that Efford lead with his helmet and tackled the running back. (I believe it was a RB) The difference in the Efford play is that the runner was not a defenseless player. The rules have been changed so that helmet to helmet contact is not automatically targeting unless the player is defenseless. For that reason, the Efford play was not targeting. However, in this case the receiver had just caught the ball, and had not become a runner so just reading the strict bullet points of the rule it was indeed targeting.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Which has definitions beneath that. The definitions of going "beyond making a legal tackle" include: leading with the helmet while making forcible contact with the head or neck area of a defenseless player. That is defined AS TARGETING in the definition of the rule. You can't argue that the rule is intended to prevent going "beyond making a legal tackle", and use that as a defense to not make a call that is clearly defined in the bullet points of the rule as targeting. In other words, if something is clearly defined as a bullet point of breaking the rule, you can't then use a general statement to say that the clearly defines bullet points don't fit the general purpose of the rule.

I never saw the replay of the Efford tackle that was reviewed for targeting and declared as no-targeting. However, my understanding of that play is that it was very similar to this play, in that Efford lead with his helmet and tackled the running back. (I believe it was a RB) The difference in the Efford play is that the runner was not a defenseless player. The rules have been changed so that helmet to helmet contact is not automatically targeting unless the player is defenseless. For that reason, the Efford play was not targeting. However, in this case the receiver had just caught the ball, and had not become a runner so just reading the strict bullet points of the rule it was indeed targeting.

I'm not going to argue this with you further beyond this response. I agree it was forcible contact. I agree it was a defenseless player.

You seem to not understand that for it to be targeting, the forcible contact has to be beyond that of making a legal tackle. Not just forcible contact, but forcible contact beyond that of making a legal tackle. I would say from watching that tackle, I can easily see how an umpire would determine the forcible contact was not beyond that of making a legal tackle. The tackle would have been a textbook tackle if it were 12 inches lower. His arms were out to wrap up after initial contact. It's up to the umpire to determine that it was beyond that of making a legal tackle.

I've already said I would have called it targeting because he hit him high. But, per the rules, it's up to the umpire to determine whether the forcible contact was beyond that of making a legal tackle. Apparently, he didn't think it rose to that level.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I'm not going to argue this with you further beyond this response. I agree it was forcible contact. I agree it was a defenseless player.

You seem to not understand that for it to be targeting, the forcible contact has to be beyond that of a legal tackle. Not just forcible contact, but forcible contact beyond that of a legal tackle. I would say from watching that tackle, I can easily see how an umpire would determine the forcible contact was not beyond that of a legal tackle. The tackle would have been a textbook tackle if it were 12 inches lower. His arms were out to wrap up after initial contact. It's up to the umpire to determine that it was beyond that of a legal tackle.

I've already said I would have called it targeting because he hit him high. But, per the rules, it's up to the umpire to determine whether the forcible contact was beyond that of a legal tackle. Apparently, he didn't think it rose to that level.

And I don’t want to belabor the point either but where in the rules does it say if first contact is made to the head or neck area it’s a legal tackle?

 

[forensicbuzz]

And I don’t want to belabor the point either but where in the rules does it say if first contact is made to the head or neck area it’s a legal tackle?

I would have called it targeting, but if not that, then unnecessary roughness, for sure. I'm already on record multiple times saying it should have been a penalty.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

In other news, Paul Finebaum pushed the narrative that Tennessee would go far in the playoffs, that Alabama should have been in the playoffs, and that Texas would blow out Arizona State, but he’s changed his mind about all of these pronouncements.

He has nibbled some on his plate of crow but overall he has enjoyed the clicks as well as sports news outlets continuing to blast his outrageous and flamboyant public statements.

Sports journalism is on life support.

 

[orientalnc]

They didn't know the outcome of the SEC CG when uga was playing Tech. If uga loses and then loses to UT, they're out. If uga beats Tech, regardless of the SEC CG, they're in. That's the point that was being made. I don't know if it was intentional or subconscious, but there was a bias in calls made in that game that led to uga not losing.

Are you suggesting the UVA AD influenced the on field officials in the GT uga game?

 

[stinger78]

In other news, Paul Finebaum pushed the narrative that Tennessee would go far in the playoffs, that Alabama should have been in the playoffs, and that Texas would blow out Arizona State, but he’s changed his mind about all of these pronouncements.

He has nibbled some on his plate of crow but overall he has enjoyed the clicks as well as sports news outlets continuing to blast his outrageous and flamboyant public statements.

Sports journalism is on life support.

And you gave him more clicks?

 

[4shotB]

In our never ending crusade against the officials, does anything else find it extremely telling that we can post a photo of a hit that will spawn pages of back and forth about whether a hit was targeting or not? It happened yesterday. It happened in the Uga game. Yet we expect the officials to get it right every single time?? how can they do that if no one else agrees on what "targeting " is anymore??

I learned this years ago in my career and believe in it implicitly. If you have a rule that can't or won't be enforced (and done so consitently) the rule either needs to be fixed or dropped. Otherwise you end up in a mess (as we are seeing in this case).

 

[Southern psu fan]

It was reviewed, which is what a challenge would be. I don't understand how they could rule that wasn't targeting. It was a defenseless player, buy they rules. It definitely looked like forceful contact with the head. Those combined meet the rule of targeting.

I am not a conspiracy theory type of person, but it is interesting that the SEC and Big10 officials seem to be biased for each other in games that they are officiating. Combine that with the fact that the Big10 and SEC are having meetings about control of NCAA football, and it is extremely easy to make up conspiracy theories about why their officiating is so obviously biased.

Well said!

 

[Southern psu fan]

IMO it was incidental targeting like incidental face mask. I actually think the rules need to be changed and if either is incidental the flags need to be waved or maybe just a 5 yard penalty. The Texas kid was just trying to make a tackle the game was on the line.

 

[stinger78]

IMO it was incidental targeting like incidental face mask. I actually think the rules need to be changed and if either is incidental the flags need to be waved or maybe just a 5 yard penalty. The Texas kid was just trying to make a tackle the game was on the line.

You don’t clear it up by adding more subjectivity. If the point is to stop head hunting, then coaches have to stop teaching/allowing tackling up high. If a ball carrier goes low shoulder to shoulder into a tackle it negates a target call.

 

[TooTall]

The purpose of the rule is to protect the players. Routinely having players knocked out due to hits to the helmet only to have targeting not called or flag waived off is criminal. We have the technology to review this in 3seconds.... hit to the head....10 yards. If it's launching and on purpose....15 yards and ejection.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

And you gave him more clicks?

No. He just shows up, uninvited, on my new feed. I don’t read him but the headlines tell you everything you need to know.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

You don’t clear it up by adding more subjectivity. If the point is to stop head hunting, then coaches have to stop teaching/allowing tackling up high. If a ball carrier goes low shoulder to shoulder into a tackle it negates a target call.

I agree. The only thing I saw that might (and I mean a big might) make the hit not fit the language in the rule is the fact that he did not lead with the crown of his helmet. He made contact with his face mask. No, I don’t think that makes it any less dangerous, but that’s just me.

They need to rewrite the rule to make it easier for the refs on the field to make the call.

 

[stinger78]

I agree. The only thing I saw that might (and I mean a big might) make the hit not fit the language in the rule is the fact that he did not lead with the crown of his helmet. He made contact with his face mask. No, I don’t think that makes it any less dangerous, but that’s just me.

They need to rewrite the rule to make it easier for the refs on the field to make the call.

Check the rule. There are two instances of targeting cited:
1. Contact (anywhere on the ball carrier’s body) using the crown of the helmet. Crown defined as a 6” radius from apex of helmet.
2. Contact to head/neck area of a defenseless player beyond the normal force needed, using any part of the body. Defenseless and beyond normal both defined further in the notes.

 

[RonJohn]

I'm not going to argue this with you further beyond this response. I agree it was forcible contact. I agree it was a defenseless player.

You seem to not understand that for it to be targeting, the forcible contact has to be beyond that of making a legal tackle. Not just forcible contact, but forcible contact beyond that of making a legal tackle. I would say from watching that tackle, I can easily see how an umpire would determine the forcible contact was not beyond that of making a legal tackle. The tackle would have been a textbook tackle if it were 12 inches lower. His arms were out to wrap up after initial contact. It's up to the umpire to determine that it was beyond that of making a legal tackle.

I've already said I would have called it targeting because he hit him high. But, per the rules, it's up to the umpire to determine whether the forcible contact was beyond that of making a legal tackle. Apparently, he didn't think it rose to that level.

I have understood your argument. You are basing it on the loose definition at the beginning of the rule. What I have been attempting to point out is that you are ignoring the strict definitions below that loose definition. The very next sentence after the one you keep quoting is "Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:". It then provides a list of things that it defines AS TARGETING. leading with the helmet and making forceful contact to the head or neck area is one of those things that is strictly defined AS TARGETING.

The gave a list of things that ARE TARGETING. The way I read the rule, the reason for the loose definition is because the things that could be targeting "are not limited to" the list of things that definitely ARE TARGETING. For example, if a defensive end were to do a flying drop kick to the head on the blind side of the QB most would agree that should be targeting. However, there is no strict definition that says leading with the feet is targeting. The officials could decide that the flying drop kick was beyond making a legal tackle. On the flip side, there is a list of strictly defined targeting. The officials cannot ignore that list and decide for themselves that the tackle "appeared" legal to them.

 

[slugboy]

You don’t clear it up by adding more subjectivity. If the point is to stop head hunting, then coaches have to stop teaching/allowing tackling up high. If a ball carrier goes low shoulder to shoulder into a tackle it negates a target call.

1. You can teach rugby-style tackling, but defenders are running full speed trying to make a stop. The reason defenders tackle high is because it’s a more natural motion
2. If tackles have to be below the waist (for example), ball carriers will lower their heads more and more to make that tougher and to draw penalties. It already looks like some ball carriers lead with their heads because the defender has to move their heads out of the way, it's a game of chicken where the rules favor the ball carrier. Until there’s an equivalent penalty for offense, this will be unfair

 

[RonJohn]

1. You can teach rugby-style tackling, but defenders are running full speed trying to make a stop. The reason defenders tackle high is because it’s a more natural motion
2. If tackles have to be below the waist (for example), ball carriers will lower their heads more and more to make that tougher and to draw penalties. It already looks like some ball carriers lead with their heads because the defender has to move their heads out of the way, it's a game of chicken where the rules favor the ball carrier. Until there’s an equivalent penalty for offense, this will be unfair

I have said for a long time, that the runner should be called for targeting if they lower their head and create the contact.

At least they have changed the rule such that the Gotsis targeting would not be targeting any longer.

 

[Root4GT]

I agree. The only thing I saw that might (and I mean a big might) make the hit not fit the language in the rule is the fact that he did not lead with the crown of his helmet. He made contact with his face mask. No, I don’t think that makes it any less dangerous, but that’s just me.

They need to rewrite the rule to make it easier for the refs on the field to make the call.

It is not the on field officials that make the determination on Targeting. All Targeting calls made by on field officials are reviewed by the review team and that group makes the final determination. Same is true is the Review officials stop the game to review potential targeting. That is what occurred in the AzSt vs Texas game.

Targeting calls are broken in College Football!