Targeting Call

[OrangePA]

It was right in front of me. I had no doubt it was a target. To me it was the perfect example of a target. I have not seen or heard any report on the call. What happened??

 

[AZOrange]

It was right in front of me. I had no doubt it was a target. To me it was the perfect example of a target. I have not seen or heard any report on the call. What happened??

It was ruled not targeting because he had established as a ball carrier at that point

 

[OrangeTarheel]

One thing refs have been quite clear on this season is that our players are NOT being targeted

 

[MGraves5]

It was right in front of me. I had no doubt it was a target. To me it was the perfect example of a target. I have not seen or heard any report on the call. What happened??

The announcers had also decided it was targeting

 

[sufandu]

The announcers had also decided it was targeting

I may be remembering it wrong, but didn't they talk to the rules guy and he also said it was because of the forcible contact to the head/neck.

 

[dwilmont44]

Another clear as day targeting not called in the PSU game

 

[RF2044]

Another clear as day targeting not called in the PSU game

Agreed. And even if it isn't targeting, how is a straight up helmet to helmet hit? Not a 15-yard penalty? Whether the player gets thrown out for targeting or not?

 

[sufandu]

I guess they're going with whether the player is defenseless. If they call it consistently, I'm ok with it since I've always thought it was unfair that the defense gets penalized when the offensive player lowers his head.

 

[RF2044]

Good -- to hell with penn state

 

[cuseattle]

They really didn't have to show it 10 times in slow mo either.
Freaking brutal!

 

[JeremyCuse]

Agreed. And even if it isn't targeting, how is a straight up helmet to helmet hit? Not a 15-yard penalty? Whether the player gets thrown out for targeting or not?

There's no penalty for a helmet to helmet hit unless theres targeting. It's either targeting or nothing.

 

[RF2044]

There's no penalty for a helmet to helmet hit unless theres targeting. It's either targeting or nothing.

Then that's dumb.

And a step backwards with respect to protecting players from defensive players using their helmets as weapons when they launch themselves.

 

[sufandu]

Then that's dumb.

And a step backwards with respect to protecting players from defensive players using their helmets as weapons when they launch themselves.

That was the thing for me with the hit on Cook. The defensive guy wasn't making an attempt to tackle. He launched his shoulder into his head in a way that was dangerous to the neck. If he wasn't crossing his arms over his chest and trying to lay him out with his shoulder, it would be ok. Make an attempt to tackle, not hit.

 

[OttosShoes]

So, I'm charged about this (have had concussions and they suck), so this is kind of a rant. I haven't watched the replay and reserve the right to change my mind if and when I do. That said, here is my current recollection on what happened:

• Cook is making a catch and run and gets abruptly stopped.
• Cook gives himself up and/or is trapped by more than one defender. Forward progress is not called.
• Duke player runs in and makes a huge hit--straight to the head of a stopped player with a lowered shoulder--that breaks the ball lose.
• Cook may or may not have been down when that happened.
• ACC take is that he was up, he was still able to make forward progress/not defenseless, and the hit didn't lead with the crown of the helmet.
• ACC take also drops the implied 'unnecessary roughness,' ergo, believes that was a legitimate football play.

*Maybe* they have a point to the letter of the law. I doubt it, but maybe.

I sure AF don't believe they can justify the spirit of the law. If this is how the rules are to be interpreted, then strategically defense should never down a runner, only trap him and hold him in place for all the other defenders to come and hit him until the ball comes loose. That's not football.

If this is really correct, then they either need to drop the rule because hits to the head are OK, or fix the rule to close whatever asinine loophole this hit found.

 

[sufandu]

So, I'm charged about this (have had concussions and they suck), so this is kind of a rant. I haven't watched the replay and reserve the right to change my mind if and when I do. That said, here is my current recollection on what happened:

• Cook is making a catch and run and gets abruptly stopped.
• Cook gives himself up and/or is trapped by more than one defender. Forward progress is not called.
• Duke player runs in and makes a huge hit--straight to the head of a stopped player with a lowered shoulder--that breaks the ball lose.
• Cook may or may not have been down when that happened.
• ACC take is that he was up, he was still able to make forward progress/not defenseless, and the hit didn't lead with the crown of the helmet.
• ACC take also drops the implied 'unnecessary roughness,' ergo, believes that was a legitimate football play.

*Maybe* they have a point to the letter of the law. I doubt it, but maybe.

I sure AF don't believe they can justify the spirit of the law. If this is how the rules are to be interpreted, then strategically defense should never down a runner, only trap him and hold him in place for all the other defenders to come and hit him until the ball comes loose. That's not football.

If this is really correct, then they either need to drop the rule because hits to the head are OK, or fix the rule to close whatever asinine loophole this hit found.

I don't think he was stopped long enough to say forward progress was stopped. It all happened pretty quickly. Lowering the shoulder and hitting the head like that should not be legal. I would rather see helmet contact while a defender is attempting to make a tackle. It would translate to less force to the head and neck.

 

[OttosShoes]

I don't think he was stopped long enough to say forward progress was stopped. It all happened pretty quickly. Lowering the shoulder and hitting the head like that should not be legal. I would rather see helmet contact while a defender is attempting to make a tackle. It would translate to less force to the head and neck.

Sure, I didn't think it was enough for a forward progress whistle, was just noting it wasn't called.

FWIW: this is one of the bullet points defining 'defenseless':

"A player with the ball who is already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped"

It doesn't say that forward progress needs to actually be called, which effectively makes it a lower bar. I mean, if that hit instead sent him backwards and he held the ball they would've spotted it where the hit was.

 

[DomeStranger]

Good -- to hell with penn state

It was PSU that speared Oregon's QB's head and the call was reversed. It absolutely was targeting. It left them with a 4th and goal on OT. Karma won out and they scored anyway.

 

[CuseBlood44]

Both cases by the book were not targeting because of the “no longer a defenseless player” thing where they become ball carriers. Fran even said as much. The rule needs to be altered if this is about player safety because both very clearly were vicious head hits

 

[VA Citrus]

He seemed to fumble when his body briefly went limp when someone put a helmet into his head. His knee was like a half inch off the ground. Real tough call. Probably killed any chance of us regaining momentum.

 

[CbusCuse]

Both cases by the book were not targeting because of the “no longer a defenseless player” thing where they become ball carriers. Fran even said as much. The rule needs to be altered if this is about player safety because both very clearly were vicious head hits

It’s all BS. Being held unmovable by multiple players, is the definition of defenseless. Then an additional players come in with a kill shot directly to the helmet. WTH does he became a “ball carrier” mean? Who do you tackle that is not a ball carrier? So stupid.

 

[llandz]

This rule needs to be changed. Especially in light of CTE, and especially when they announced this week that the Park Avenue shooter who was trying to get to the NFL offices did indeed have CTE after studying his brain. This person only played through HS, so what does this tell you about all of those hits to the head? To me any helmet to helmet on any portion of the head/helmet should be targeting. Unless the player is blocked into the other player.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

I don't think he was stopped long enough to say forward progress was stopped. It all happened pretty quickly. Lowering the shoulder and hitting the head like that should not be legal. I would rather see helmet contact while a defender is attempting to make a tackle. It would translate to less force to the head and neck.

someone blew a whistle because they felt progress had been stopped. yet that was never discussed on the broadcast. I always thought a blown whistle trumps all.