Targeting

[HokieNation]

I understand the idea behind a targeting penalty, but two things are ridiculous about it.

1. The call can be made by the replay booth after the play.
2. It doesn't seem to take into account that the offensive player is lowering his helmet as well.

The fact that you can go to replay to call a penalty is absurd. How about calling holding after the fact or perhaps a late hit out of bounds after the fact?

The NCAA needs to "review" this penalty.

 

[Hokiepoke]

I understand the idea behind a targeting penalty, but two things are ridiculous about it.

1. The call can be made by the replay booth after the play.
2. It doesn't seem to take into account that the offensive player is lowering his helmet as well.

The fact that you can go to replay to call a penalty is absurd. How about calling holding after the fact or perhaps a late hit out of bounds after the fact?

The NCAA needs to "review" this penalty.

Couldn't agree more. Specially for late hit out of bounds.

 

[Hoos19NC]

It's all about a players safety.....as you saw the Duke player was basically knocked out. Good call by the rules of targeting, absolutely no doubt they got it correct.

 

[1bburgfan]

It's all about a players safety.....as you saw the Duke player was basically knocked out. Good call by the rules of targeting, absolutely no doubt they got it correct.

Then they missed the one on Cunningham in the 1st half. Cut blocks need to be an ejection also.

 

[HokieNation]

Then they missed the one on Cunningham in the 1st half. Cut blocks need to be an ejection also.

Exactly. They missed the helmet-to-helmit hit on Cunningham AND it was late.

 

[Hoos19NC]

Exactly. They missed the helmet-to-helmit hit on Cunningham AND it was late.

Missing one doesn't make the 2nd one ok....I didn't see the play on Cunningham so I can't comment on the officials missing that one but they got the targeting on Edmunds correct.

 

[HokieNation]

It's all about a players safety.....as you saw the Duke player was basically knocked out. Good call by the rules of targeting, absolutely no doubt they got it correct.

Thank you Sherlock. I know what it is all about...safety. However, calling it from the replay booth is beyond absurd. If we are now calling penalties from replay, what do we need the referees on the field for other than to place the ball in play?

On the flip side, can we go to the replay booth to take away a penalty? I'm sure FSU's Jimbo Fisher would be onboard after last week's game against Clemson.

 

[1bburgfan]

Missing one doesn't make the 2nd one ok....I didn't see the play on Cunningham so I can't comment on the officials missing that one but they got the targeting on Edmunds correct.

Being consistent is all you can ask of an official

 

[Hoos19NC]

Thank you Sherlock. I know what it is all about...safety. However, calling it from the replay booth is beyond absurd. If we are now calling penalties from replay, what do we need the referees on the field for other than to place the ball in play?

On the flip side, can we go to the replay booth to take away a penalty? I'm sure FSU's Jimbo Fisher would be onboard after last week's game against Clemson.

Ok Holmes...it's called from the booth because a players safety should override a missed call by the official.

 

[HokieNation]

Ok Holmes...it's called from the booth because a players safety should override a missed call by the official.

OK, but not late hits, chop blocks, cheap shots, etc? That, to me, is the issue...the inconsistent application of overriding a missed call for players safety. But, the rules are what they are. Perhaps they will change, but I doubt it. Mandatory juice boxes at half time will be the next rule change...due to player safety, of course.

 

[Hoos19NC]

OK, but not late hits, chop blocks, cheap shots, etc? That, to me, is the issue...the inconsistent application of overriding a missed call for players safety. But, the rules are what they are. Perhaps they will change, but I doubt it. Mandatory juice boxes at half time will be the next rule change...due to player safety, of course.

I wonder if your passion would be so great if a VT player had been the one targeted.....just sayin.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

I was at game. Several missed calls in Dukes's favor. Or bad calls vs VT.

 

[BigDaddyHokie]

I like everything about the rule....however, if the offensive player sees it coming he is not defenseless and he lowered his head and led with it also.

 

[HokieNation]

I wonder if your passion would be so great if a VT player had been the one targeted.....just sayin.

Wonder all you want. I'm not saying that Edmunds didn't commit a targeting foul, never did. My passion is for not having penalties initiated by replay.

 

[RB4]

Running backs need to start being ejected as well. Terrell went in to make a body tackle and the running back lowered his head. I played line backer.. I would love to see anyone go in 100 MPH to make a body or wrap legs with their facemask to the sky. impossible. this rule is made so the NCAA is not liable for anything. Doesent have to make sense, but it is what it is. Hopefully we will benefit from one soon.

 

[HeaksManley]

Thank you Sherlock. I know what it is all about...safety. However, calling it from the replay booth is beyond absurd. If we are now calling penalties from replay, what do we need the referees on the field for other than to place the ball in play?

On the flip side, can we go to the replay booth to take away a penalty? I'm sure FSU's Jimbo Fisher would be onboard after last week's game against Clemson.

Generally, I'd agree with you, but you have to put player safety at a premium -- especially with what we know about CTE and concussions now. I know that consistency is an issue, but you have to call it when you see it or suspect it and review is necessary for the players on the giving and receiving ends of the call. The reason other penalties aren't reviewable is because, generally speaking, player safety is not an issue and I do think that changes the complexion of all this. I don't like the ejection, but they made the correct call per the rules, IMO, and harsh consequences for these hits are necessary to eliminate behavioral tendencies that result in them. Substantive progress/improvement may lag behind, but I think eventually it will become second nature to players.

 

[B1dee]

OK, but not late hits, chop blocks, cheap shots, etc? That, to me, is the issue...the inconsistent application of overriding a missed call for players safety. But, the rules are what they are. Perhaps they will change, but I doubt it. Mandatory juice boxes at half time will be the next rule change...due to player safety, of course.

I heard the NCAA is considering putting flag belts on quarterbacks, receivers, running backs and basically anyone running with the ball. Way too much contact on kick-offs and punts. Eliminate those for sure. Soon there will be no need for helmets and pads. Heck, I like rugby.

 

[HeaksManley]

I heard the NCAA is considering putting flag belts on quarterbacks, receivers, running backs and basically anyone running with the ball. Way too much contact on kick-offs and punts. Eliminate those for sure. Soon there will be no need for helmets and pads. Heck, I like rugby.

Let's just give the players knives, Dodge trucks and brass knuckles and let them kill each other. I'm so tired of the wussification of America. I'm so tired of the lack of manly tough guy stuff. America is about reckless endangerment and being a tough guy who isn't a huge pantywaist.

 

[HeaksManley]

Running backs need to start being ejected as well. Terrell went in to make a body tackle and the running back lowered his head. I played line backer.. I would love to see anyone go in 100 MPH to make a body or wrap legs with their facemask to the sky. impossible. this rule is made so the NCAA is not liable for anything. Doesent have to make sense, but it is what it is. Hopefully we will benefit from one soon.

It's just evidently not being stressed hard enough, which isn't surprising. Players still routinely lower their heads both on offense and defense. I know it's not something you can change overnight, but it can be taught and learned. Body movements are not just reflexive or involuntary.

Also, I'm not sure running backs should be ejected, but if you are on the receiving end of a hit of that nature, just as a matter of safety protocol, you should be removed from the game. It is a slippery slope, but that's how it's always been. Officiating is largely discretionary, and that extends to these new rules regarding player safety as well.

 

[mrjolly01]

It's all about a players safety.....as you saw the Duke player was basically knocked out. Good call by the rules of targeting, absolutely no doubt they got it correct.

If it was so obvious why didn't they call it on the play? I didn't see the clear evidence on the replay from any of the angles they showed to call that on the review. I agree with the OP - penalties should not be levied on replay. Change that rule. Replay should be about things like if a receivers foot was in bounds, ball placement, clean catches, things like that. Next thing you know they will be using replay to call holding. I don't think we want that...

 

[RB4]

Did anyone see the Hit that Gallaman from Clemson took against NC State that knocked him out cold. Probably worse than this hit, also a fumble.. no flag.. no discussion.. no ejection..

 

[HeaksManley]

If it was so obvious why didn't they call it on the play? I didn't see the clear evidence on the replay from any of the angles they showed to call that on the review. I agree with the OP - penalties should not be levied on replay. Change that rule. Replay should be about things like if a receivers foot was in bounds, ball placement, clean catches, things like that. Next thing you know they will be using replay to call holding. I don't think we want that...

I think there is a pretty clear delineation here between calling penalties related exclusively to rules and procedures, and ones that carry more urgency i.e. player safety. They do something similar in basketball with flagrant 1 and 2 calls, right? I don't have a problem with this because it relates to player safety and I don't think it's going to create some slippery slope where calls are all subject to revision. Maybe they should change automatic ejection calls to a lesser punishment like sitting out a series or two or a quarter until post-game review can be done. But I'm really okay with this 90% of the time, and I don't understand the blowback.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

Refs on field made right call. The replay guy made bad call and should be removed from the booth or where ever he is. In case no one noticed. VT got shafted by replay on every call yesterday. Those replay guys were Duke fans.

 

[hokiemtc]

I agree with the spirit of the rule in general, but the call yesterday was horrendous. The Duke RB was not a defenseless player and he lowered his head and initiated the contact.

What is a defensive back supposed to do in that situation, when a RB lowers his head and intentionally targets him? It's too late to change directions at that point to avoid contact, and do we really want our defensive backs going out of their ways to avoid contact to begin with?

 

[VT33]

Well, here's the way I saw it. I wasn't there and had the benefit of watching all the angles of the replay from the couch. I thought Edmunds was going at first for the ball to try to get a fumble, the runner saw he coming and turned and tried spin away but didn't make it. Bang, bang play and probably should have had a flag, not sure about the targeting call. The one on Cunningham was just as bad and it basically happened after the play was over after he had dropped the ball. The referees err on the side of caution in all those plays like that just in case.

The hardest hits that I can remember happened when you didn't see them coming and were relaxed, not braced for the hit.

Then there are the things like the Nebraska QB that happened yesterday. Jack Tatum of the old Raiders gang wouldn't had made it through a quarter nowadays. Boy, those were some rough times.

 

[Hoos19NC]

Refs on field made right call. The replay guy made bad call and should be removed from the booth or where ever he is. In case no one noticed. VT got shafted by replay on every call yesterday. Those replay guys were Duke fans.

You have to be nuts to claim this was not targeting....seriously the refs on the field are the ones that blew the call.

 

[Hoos19NC]

Well, here's the way I saw it. I wasn't there and had the benefit of watching all the angles of the replay from the couch. I thought Edmunds was going at first for the ball to try to get a fumble, the runner saw he coming and turned and tried spin away but didn't make it. Bang, bang play and probably should have had a flag, not sure about the targeting call. The one on Cunningham was just as bad and it basically happened after the play was over after he had dropped the ball. The referees err on the side of caution in all those plays like that just in case.

The hardest hits that I can remember happened when you didn't see them coming and were relaxed, not braced for the hit.

Then there are the things like the Nebraska QB that happened yesterday. Jack Tatum of the old Raiders gang wouldn't had made it through a quarter nowadays. Boy, those were some rough times.

The old days of football is why so many former players have serious health issues especially from the concussions. Football has got to try to protect players or the game will start to decline because parents will continue to push kids toward other sports like soccer.

 

[hokiemtc]

You have to be nuts to claim this was not targeting....

That was 100% guaranteed, positively, absolutely NOT targeting. The flag not only was NOT thrown on the field because it didn't happen, but the reversal from the booth didn't even fit the letter of the rule.

I'm generally a fan of the rule, but the replay official royally botched that one. I hope he gets reprimanded this week.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

The Duke player was more guilty than Edmunds.replay ref must have been bored and decided to make up a call to try to affect outcome of game.

 

[Hoos19NC]

That was 100% guaranteed, positively, absolutely NOT targeting. The flag not only was NOT thrown on the field because it didn't happen, but the reversal from the booth didn't even fit the letter of the rule.

I'm generally a fan of the rule, but the replay official royally botched that one. I hope he gets reprimanded this week.

I laughed....maybe you should take off the maroon and orange glasses. It was the definition of targeting.

 

[B1dee]

Let's just give the players knives, Dodge trucks and brass knuckles and let them kill each other. I'm so tired of the wussification of America. I'm so tired of the lack of manly tough guy stuff. America is about reckless endangerment and being a tough guy who isn't a huge pantywaist.

Amen brother but I prefer Chevy trucks!

 

[B1dee]

If it was so obvious why didn't they call it on the play? I didn't see the clear evidence on the replay from any of the angles they showed to call that on the review. I agree with the OP - penalties should not be levied on replay. Change that rule. Replay should be about things like if a receivers foot was in bounds, ball placement, clean catches, things like that. Next thing you know they will be using replay to call holding. I don't think we want that...

Maybe replay should be used on every play. That would benefit everyone excep the games would last over 5 hours. But that would be a good reason to raise ticket prices.

 

[mrjolly01]

I think there is a pretty clear delineation here between calling penalties related exclusively to rules and procedures, and ones that carry more urgency i.e. player safety. They do something similar in basketball with flagrant 1 and 2 calls, right? I don't have a problem with this because it relates to player safety and I don't think it's going to create some slippery slope where calls are all subject to revision. Maybe they should change automatic ejection calls to a lesser punishment like sitting out a series or two or a quarter until post-game review can be done. But I'm really okay with this 90% of the time, and I don't understand the blowback.

Its all my opinion so we can agree to disagree, but I do think some blowback is natural with a controversial call or rule, in this case (for me), both. I don't have a problem with safety rules but I'd like to see it called on the play and not on the replay. They don't use replay to reverse a penalty call but here they are using it to reverse a non-penalty call. In this case, they don't see it in real time enough to make a call, and then have to run it back multiple times to see it well enough to make a judgement that carries an automatic ejection from the point of the call through the first half of the next game. I think that's over the top. If its clear enough to call during the play and then review it to confirm, then I don't have a problem with the punishment. If not I don't think the player needs to come out of the game at all. I generally view the basketball calls the same way. Normally when something's "flagrant" it usually stands out, at least enough make the call. Then if they need a replay to determine 1 vs 2 then that's a situation that may need to be reviewed, probably even should be if they called a 2, but again, the constant being at least they made the call. The other problem I had with the call on Edmunds was I didn't see the clear evidence in the replay for either a personal foul or a targeting foul. Call reversals are supposed to require clear evidence the call on the field was wrong. To me it looked like a valid football play, and looked like the Duke player turned into Edmunds at his shoulder.

Edit: forgot to mention about your comment concerning the slippery slope. You are right - I'm really not too worried about holding non-call reversals. Hopefully that's a reach.

 

[hokiemtc]

I laughed....maybe you should take off the maroon and orange glasses. It was the definition of targeting.

I don't post with O&M galsses on. Here's the definition of targeting, although it sounds like you already think you're an expert on the subject...

"No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.

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."

Point 1: Obviously the Duke RB was not a defenseless player, per Note 2 posted above.

Point 2: That leaves the only basis for a targeting call as detailed in Note 1, and here's why I say the call doesn't meet the letter of the rule: The trajectory of the tackler at no point in time was aimed at the head or neck area of the RB, and IF the RB had not lowered his head at the last second to initiate the helmet-to-helmet contact, then there would NOT have been any helmet-to-helmet contact. Note 1 explicitly states INTENT to hit the head and neck area or INTENT to hit with the crown of the helmet, and neither one of those was the case here. If the RB does not lower his head, then the tackle is made via shoulder-to-chest contact based on the trajectory that the tackler was on.

It was a horrible call, period. I hope the replay official gets reprimanded this week.

 

[Hoos19NC]

I don't post with O&M galsses on. Here's the definition of targeting, although it sounds like you already think you're an expert on the subject...

"No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.

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."

Point 1: Obviously the Duke RB was not a defenseless player, per Note 2 posted above.

Point 2: That leaves the only basis for a targeting call as detailed in Note 1, and here's why I say the call doesn't meet the letter of the rule: The trajectory of the tackler at no point in time was aimed at the head or neck area of the RB, and IF the RB had not lowered his head at the last second to initiate the helmet-to-helmet contact, then there would NOT have been any helmet-to-helmet contact. Note 1 explicitly states INTENT to hit the head and neck area or INTENT to hit with the crown of the helmet, and neither one of those was the case here. If the RB does not lower his head, then the tackle is made via shoulder-to-chest contact based on the trajectory that the tackler was on.

It was a horrible call, period. I hope the replay official gets reprimanded this week.

They don't reprimand officials who the calls correct...no action will be taken.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

Whoever made that call in the booth should not be reprimanded. He should be fired.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

I just found and viewed the play. If the stupid replay ref wanted to call targeting, he should have called it on the Duke RB. Edmunds did nothing wrong. I hope ACC and NCAA looks into this type of crooked replay. Thankfully it did not cost VT a win.

 

[bschroed]

Here's where I have a problem: Targeting implies intent. There are some instances where it is obvious, like earlier in the game when the VT receiver was hit late.
Also, I've never seen targeting called on an offensive player, that doesn't make sense, when you see RB's in particular lower their heads and launch, at that point if someone gets hit in the helmet it should be targeting as well.

Saturday: since the Duke RB lowered his head simultaneously, it couldn't have been intentional targeting as he didn't see the lowering of the RB's head. In this instance, if they really want to protect the players, there should either be no call or the RB should have been called for targeting.

Funny story, Joe Paterno (and I don't want to have that converstion) said the way to eliminate head and neck injuries in football is to get rid of helmets and pads. It's silly on one hand, but the helmet today is designed as a weapon.

Like so many bureauratic rules, the intentions are good but the execution doesn't consider unintended consequences.

 

[Hoos19NC]

I just found and viewed the play. If the stupid replay ref wanted to call targeting, he should have called it on the Duke RB. Edmunds did nothing wrong. I hope ACC and NCAA looks into this type of crooked replay. Thankfully it did not cost VT a win.

I laughed

 

[VA4VT]

What I didn't like about the call was that it in the replay it looks like Wilson's helmet makes contact with the VT logo on the side of Edmunds helmet. I get that Edmunds is coming in fast but it looks like he's going across the front of the ball-carrier when helmet-to-helmet contact takes place. I disagree with the "crown concept" in this particular instance.