ADVERTISEMENT

Targeting

Someone better give an explanation to why that was overturned. I'm guessing the B1G office will come out and say it was wrong to overturn but he can still play against Michigan.
 
I think the reversed targeting call was bad, but how bout the no call on #54 when he drilled Stanley in the facemask as he was throwing the ball. They didn't flag it, they didn't review it, but I thought it was far worse then the hit on the TE. Both should have been penalized IMOP.
The hit on Stanley was the interception. I thought that was rather high too. Not complaining, but I think that is definitely a penalty in the NFL and I don’t think you could have argued a ton against a NCAA targeting call if it had been made.
 
Meh....Refs were poop both ways.
As they often times are. The problem is on the targeting calls, the refs are supposed to be looking to protect defenseless players from risk of serious injury. Both should have been targeting, but especially the one called on the field on #18. That was the definition of targeting on both scenarios for which is was written. Both announcers and the studio rules interpretor agreed it was certainly targeting, without question. Then the field official views the replay and says nope, no targeting there. He needs to be suspended for overturning that blatantly obvious call. There is no reason at all to have replay, if the field official is going to overturn obvious calls.
The worst part was listening to the asshat Blackledge, saying it was without question targeting, then as soon as it was overturned, he was like WOW, good deal he won't be missing that 1st half against Michigan! Serious dude, homer much?
 
Watch the replay, #18 hits his shoulder pad first. Then the helmets collide. I think it was a great no call and the replay official did a good job of over turning the call.
Still drove the crown of his helmet into the TE. The defender knew that he led with the helmet and you could see he was sweating the call.
 
Still drove the crown of his helmet into the TE. The defender knew that he led with the helmet and you could see he was sweating the call.

Nah, he knew he made a good tackle. But usually they don’t over turn the targeting call. Anything close they seem to eject the defender. I still think it was a great no call. If that was an Iowa player ejected everyone would be saying it wasnt targeting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hotmetal
Watch the replay, #18 hits his shoulder pad first. Then the helmets collide. I think it was a great no call and the replay official did a good job of over turning the call.
As it clearly states in the rule, he lowered his head and made contact with the crown of his helmet. If it was so obvious why did all three talking heads including the studios replay expert say it was an obvious targeting call on both criteria? This rule is also put in place to protect the striker, and leading with the crown of the helmet, head down is a good way to suffer a neck injury for the defender in this case.
 
As it clearly states in the rule, he lowered his head and made contact with the crown of his helmet. If it was so obvious why did all three talking heads including the studios replay expert say it was an obvious targeting call on both criteria? This rule is also put in place to protect the striker, and leading with the crown of the helmet, head down is a good way to suffer a neck injury for the defender in this case.

How many players keep their heads up when making a tackle? He hit shoulder pads first and then the heads collided. He didn’t lead w/the helmet and hit the head first. He hit shoulder pad on shoulder pad. If that’s targeting, then they need to just put flags on everyone.
 
How many players keep their heads up when making a tackle? He hit shoulder pads first and then the heads collided. He didn’t lead w/the helmet and hit the head first. He hit shoulder pad on shoulder pad. If that’s targeting, then they need to just put flags on everyone.
Well I don't agree and obviously neither did anyone doing the game who watched the replay like 10 times when it was shown, including the guy who IS supposed to be the rules expert so.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: scotthawk1964
I think the reversed targeting call was bad, but how bout the no call on #54 when he drilled Stanley in the facemask as he was throwing the ball. They didn't flag it, they didn't review it, but I thought it was far worse then the hit on the TE. Both should have been penalized IMOP.

and how many divison 1 games have you ref'ed?
 
They also missed one against our running back. Pretty sure it was in the first quarter. He was being held up by a psu player and another player came in a crushed him helmet to helmet. No call
 
You can't lower your shoulder without lowering your head. Contact was shoulder to shoulder, but Toney's helmet went up under the chin. Call could have gone either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 so far
Someone better give an explanation to why that was overturned. I'm guessing the B1G office will come out and say it was wrong to overturn but he can still play against Michigan.
You can't lower your shoulder without lowering your head. Contact was shoulder to shoulder, but Toney's helmet went up under the chin. Call could have gone either way.

It’s forcible contact to the head and neck with the helmet striking him in the neck.

The only reason it wasn’t called is because he hopped up so quick after the play.

But by rule I don’t know how you don’t call this one.
 
Crying about officiating....meh.

Iowa got 1 big call go their way, saved 4pts, and still lost. Just like last week Refs kind of screwed Iowa over...sheet happens.

I think the PSU guy should have been thrown out. He was a DLineman dropping back into coverage and he didn't know what he was doing in coverage. Not intentional, but the idea of the rule is to prevent that type of hit so he'll learn his lesson. Out of sour grapes, I'd have liked to see him kicked out and not eligible to start next game. Zero effect on outcome of Iowa game.
 
How many players keep their heads up when making a tackle? He hit shoulder pads first and then the heads collided. He didn’t lead w/the helmet and hit the head first. He hit shoulder pad on shoulder pad. If that’s targeting, then they need to just put flags on everyone.

Literally everyone when they started playing football was taught to tackle with their heads up. "If you can't see it, you cant tackle it" and similar adages. But then Sportscenter came along and everyone went woohoo everytime someone got lit up on a hit. A lot of people who never actually played the game stood up and yelled "yeah, that's real football, damn it." Young players want fame and fortune so they emulate what they see. That mindset held sway for about twenty years. Then people started hearing about this thing called CTE. Now, high schools are cancelling seasons and even programs because kids and especially parents don't want to go down that road. So everyone who has glorified the "wow, he really knocks the shit out of people" narrative can take ownership in bringing about the demise of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kceasthawk
Literally everyone when they started playing football was taught to tackle with their heads up. "If you can't see it, you cant tackle it" and similar adages. But then Sportscenter came along and everyone went woohoo everytime someone got lit up on a hit. A lot of people who never actually played the game stood up and yelled "yeah, that's real football, damn it." Young players want fame and fortune so they emulate what they see. That mindset held sway for about twenty years. Then people started hearing about this thing called CTE. Now, high schools are cancelling seasons and even programs because kids and especially parents don't want to go down that road. So everyone who has glorified the "wow, he really knocks the shit out of people" narrative can take ownership in bringing about the demise of the game.

Video games certainly aren’t helping the cause as well. The game is safer than it ever has been. They are trying to get the “Big hits” out of the game. It’s natural instinct to drop your head when tackling. He lead with his shoulder and the first contact was pad on pad.

Helmets are going to hit, its football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 so far
How many players keep their heads up when making a tackle? He hit shoulder pads first and then the heads collided. He didn’t lead w/the helmet and hit the head first. He hit shoulder pad on shoulder pad. If that’s targeting, then they need to just put flags on everyone.
Exactly, textbook tackle, led with the shoulder. Would not want that called on Penn State or Iowa player, and then suspended for next game. Officials got it right.
 
Video games certainly aren’t helping the cause as well. The game is safer than it ever has been. They are trying to get the “Big hits” out of the game. It’s natural instinct to drop your head when tackling. He lead with his shoulder and the first contact was pad on pad.

Helmets are going to hit, its football.

I just re-watched the play in question. He absolutely DID NOT lead with his shoulder. To do that, you have to get your head to one side of the ball carrier. You also have to come to base. He did neither of those things. He leaned in and initiated contact with the crown of his helmet. If that wasn't targeting, they may as well take that rule out of the rulebook.
Edit. Even if it wasn't helmet-to-helmet (which it was), striking a defenseless receiver above the shoulders is targeting. It checked every box.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kceasthawk
I just re-watched the play in question. He absolutely DID NOT lead with his shoulder. To do that, you have to get your head to one side of the ball carrier. You also have to come to base. He did neither of those things. He leaned in and initiated contact with the crown of his helmet. If that wasn't targeting, they may as well take that rule out of the rulebook.

The hit in the TE that was reversed. Watch it slow-motion and pads hit first. They got it right, live with it and move on. If ya don’t like it, sign up to be a replay official.
 
The hit in the TE that was reversed. Watch it slow-motion and pads hit first. They got it right, live with it and move on. If ya don’t like it, sign up to be a replay official.

Dave Cutaia officiated football for over forty years. He was head of officiating for a P5 conference before he went to work with ABC/ESPN. I value his opinion over yours. He was emphatic in his analysis of the play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kceasthawk
The one on the receiver was a penalty no mater what because it was a blow to the head and neck area of a defenseless receiver. Even if they did not kick him out for some odd reason it should have been a 15 yard penalty.
 
Iowa got 1 big call go their way, saved 4pts, and still lost. Just like last week Refs kind of screwed Iowa over...sheet happens.

I think the PSU guy should have been thrown out. He was a DLineman dropping back into coverage and he didn't know what he was doing in coverage. Not intentional, but the idea of the rule is to prevent that type of hit so he'll learn his lesson. Out of sour grapes, I'd have liked to see him kicked out and not eligible to start next game. Zero effect on outcome of Iowa game.

they also missed AJ poking QB in eye on attempted sack
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregInPitt
Dave Cutaia officiated football for over forty years. He was head of officiating for a P5 conference before he went to work with ABC/ESPN. I value his opinion over yours. He was emphatic in his analysis of the play.

he got it wrong. Was the penalty upheld? Nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 so far
It’s understandable why the call was reversed and I think it was correct to do so.


College football is back, and the rule book is (a little) different.

Although 2019 was classified as an off-year for rule changes, officials could still make edits if they involved player safety; adjustments to any recent change that was “not achieving its intent”; or if they would have “a significant impact on the image of the game.”

Here are a few of the revisions that will be in effect for this season.

There will be no gray area for targeting.
Past targeting calls were subject to video review with three possible outcomes: A call could be confirmed or overturned, or, if there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn it on the field, it could stand. The new rule no longer allows referees to “stand” with the play as called, meaning targeting penalties will be imposed only when they clearly withstand more scrutiny.

That new standard will apply only to targeting, not other kinds of plays. Turnovers and scoring plays, for example, will still stand if video evidence is not conclusive enough to overturn the original call.

For targeting, officials will have to confirm every element of the call for a player to be penalized. If any component of targeting, like a player aiming at an opponent with the intent of attacking, is absent, the call on the field will be overturned.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown 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. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head
or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (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). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
• 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.

RulE 9 / ConduCt oF PlayERs and othERs subJECt to RulEs FR-89
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession
• A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-
first.

Targeting
ARTICLE 5 a. The replay official shall review all targeting fouls, Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. For a player to be disqualified and the Targeting foul to be enforced, all elements of a Targeting foul must be confirmed by the Instant Replay Official. There is no option for stands as a part of a Targeting review. If any element of Targeting cannot be confirmed, then the Replay Official shall overturn the targeting foul.
Targeting elements include:
1. Rule 9-1-3:
(a) A player takes aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.
(b) An indicator of targeting is present.
2. Rule 9-1-4:
(a) A defenseless opponent (Rule 2-27-14).
(b) A player takes aim at a defenseless opponent for the purposes of
attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area. (c) An indicator of targeting is present.
b. The replay official may create a targeting foul from the booth when the targeting action is clear and obvious and the foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge.
 
ADVERTISEMENT