Targeting Call

[OttosShoes]

The call was not targeting as it wasn't helmet initial contact but a shoulder.

Targeting is leading with the crown or any unnecessary hit to the head on a defenseless player.

The hit didn't lead with the head that's clear. But their review must have concluded that this player wasn't defenseless.

Here's the definition of defenseless.

SECTION 27. Team and Player Designations​

Defenseless Player ​

ARTICLE 14. ​

A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:​

...​

h. A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.​

...​

I get that 'h' is debatable, but this, especially in bold:

"A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. "

is wild. It's one thing if they never threw a flag, but the call on the field was targeting, so they're saying that video is clear and irrefutable evidence that proves there's no question he isn't defenseless.

Was the ACC review booth on TV? Did they have clarity. I called the fumble pretty quick in my section as I think jis knee was on a foot.

At least in the replay it was notably absent.

 

[VTAaron]

Targeting is leading with the crown or any unnecessary hit to the head on a defenseless player.

The hit didn't lead with the head that's clear. But their review must have concluded that this player wasn't defenseless.
View attachment 255569

Here's the definition of defenseless.


I get that 'h' is debatable, but this, especially in bold:

"A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. "

is wild. It's one thing if they never threw a flag, but the call on the field was targeting, so they're saying that video is clear and irrefutable evidence that proves there's no question he isn't defenseless.



At least in the replay it was notably absent.

I agree he was defenseless he was going down backwards with 2 others in front one on behind when it hit, not this picture, and the targeting person on the side. The hit was a bit later in the video which is sad, but that picture paints the picture in that he definitely cant defend himself. It was the longest review I've ever experienced actually, just disappointed on how it turned out as it killed the SU Offense, Defense, and spirit of the game early on. Maybe it could have been different overall.

 

[powdersmack]

Targeting is leading with the crown or any unnecessary hit to the head on a defenseless player.

The hit didn't lead with the head that's clear. But their review must have concluded that this player wasn't defenseless.
View attachment 255569

Here's the definition of defenseless.


I get that 'h' is debatable, but this, especially in bold:

"A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. "

is wild. It's one thing if they never threw a flag, but the call on the field was targeting, so they're saying that video is clear and irrefutable evidence that proves there's no question he isn't defenseless.



At least in the replay it was notably absent.

That is also not a fumble.

 

[OttosShoes]

Here's the relevant verbiage for the hit on a defenseless player:

• 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

Sure seems like the 2nd and 3rd apply.

 

[VTAaron]

Here's the relevant verbiage for the hit on a defenseless player:



Sure seems like the 2nd and 3rd apply.

In the video and replays during the game I don't think he directly hit the head/neck, which is why I think the refs discounted the 2nd/3rd unless I missed that angle. The helmet contact was after not a direct item too. I think they need to update definitions.

 

[OttosShoes]

In the video and replays during the game I don't think he directly hit the head/neck, which is why I think the refs discounted the 2nd/3rd unless I missed that angle. The helmet contact was after not a direct item too. I think they need to update definitions.

Here's the URL. Stills are tough, but when you watch in slow motion you can time the impact better.


Anyway, wouldn't surprise me if Wildhack follows up with the ACC on this and I think he should, but I also think I'm beating a dead horse at this point. Whatever the rules are I just don't like this being part of the game.

 

[VTAaron]

View attachment 255571
View attachment 255570

Here's the URL. Stills are tough, but when you watch in slow motion you can time the impact better.


Anyway, wouldn't surprise me if Wildhack follows up with the ACC on this and I think he should, but I also think I'm beating a dead horse at this point. Whatever the rules are I just don't like this being part of the game.

Yeah good pics... Yeah a 'hip' vs a shoulder... Wording needs to change on targetting as he was already going down and vulnerable. At least at min it should be a personal foul like throwing your weight on top on a tackle.

It's probably why it took so long to review as it didnt meet the definition. Either way we go screwed and it I think this is where it messed up the rest of the game as it wasn't one hit but then the rest of the hits after too going backwards. Damn lucky his neck is not broke as it was the opposite direction with the other 2 on top of him after going backwards.

 

[VTAaron]

Yeah good pics... Yeah a 'hip' vs a shoulder... Wording needs to change on targetting as he was already going down and vulnerable. At least at min it should be a personal foul like throwing your weight on top on a tackle.

It's probably why it took so long to review as it didnt meet the definition. Either way we go screwed and it I think this is where it messed up the rest of the game as it wasn't one hit but then the rest of the hits after too going backwards. Damn lucky his neck is not broke as it was the opposite direction with the other 2 on top of him after going backwards.

Still should at least been some personal foul and the fumble reversed as a result.

 

[Cuse On 3]

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.

Rudi Johnson recently committed suicide. Great running back for auburn and the bengals. Was only 45. Most likely CTE according to family

 

[Willy75]

Good -- to hell with penn state

They did the targeting that wasn’t called.

 

[longtimefan]

Definitely a fumble, but the review was about targeting, just can't introduce new penalties, but the other had the ball after so it was implicit in the review. It's sad a blatent personal foul results in a turnover given the video evidence.

I am fairly certain they called personal foul, with targeting. The personal foul should have stood, and the fumble probably negated.

 

[Consigliere]

I am fairly certain they called personal foul, with targeting. The personal foul should have stood, and the fumble probably negated.

That would have been the correct call on the field and subsequent outcome but they did NOT call the PF. Again, I am fine with reviewing for targeting before ejection but if the hit was brutal enough to throw the flag, it should be an unnecessary roughness penalty and the flag cannot be picked up. The only reason for the automatic review is the severity of the penalty but there is no other case where a committed penalty (one caused by contact) can be reversed.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

What was the call on the field? Fumble and targeting or no fumble? The Umpire spots the ball and the sideline Ref never indicated Duke's ball. The head Ref's verbiage made it sound like an overturned call and not a confirmation.

There is nothing definitive to show the ball is out before the right knee hits (assuming you want to believe that the left knee is completely on the defender's foot which is still not conclusive). There is no way you can overturn the non fumble call on the field.

I don't want an apology, I want the Ref disciplined.

 

[VTAaron]

What was the call on the field? Fumble and targeting or no fumble? The Umpire spots the ball and the sideline Ref never indicated Duke's ball. The head Ref's verbiage made it sound like an overturned call and not a confirmation.

There is nothing definitive to show the ball is out before the right knee hits (assuming you want to believe that the left knee is completely on the defender's foot which is still not conclusive). There is no way you can overturn the non fumble call on the field.

I don't want an apology, I want the Ref disciplined.

I sorta agree. The fumble turn over call came after the review.

 

[OrangePA]

I think the nuances of targeting have gotten everyone away from the reason targeting started. It was to protect players. Cook was a defenseless receiver going down who took an unnecessary shot to the head.

They spend all that time looking at how the crown of his helmet hit the player and just completely ignored that it’s a personal foul for unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver.

ACC needs to look at this. They didn’t protect Cook’s brain and so that player now thinks he can do that again.

Absolutely right

 

[upperdeck]

the ref throws a flag because a vicious hit occurs, If he calls it PF with targeting the intent of the rule is enforced and the targeting gets reviewed.

The whole issue with many reviews now is that they are not calling what they see and are being coached for the best outcome. they dont want to blow a whistle and stop a play by mistake and the review doesnt always fix the mistake.

The refs have done a bad job in many games if deciding when a play should end. We got hosed last yr vs BC because they let Kyle get mugged and dragged backwards but never ended forward progress

Much like they seem to let scrums happen with 10 players and let the scrum carry/push the ball carrier much after the player has control of what is happening. yet the reverse does not happen when it goes backwards, once the player is no longer able move the ball they should be blowing it dead. Then players dont get rung up with late hits or punches at the ball.

 

[PhatOrange]

Ok I watched the replay. Just...wow.

View attachment 255562

View attachment 255563
View attachment 255564
View attachment 255565



I hope Johntay is OK today.

These stills make me crazy about the fumble call. There is no way on earth anyway can say his knee is not down. Could it be on a shoe? Sure. Could it be on the turf? Sure. I don't remember if the call on the field was fumble or not. If it wasn't there's no way it should've been overturned.

And I love the last frame where Cook is holding his head. The call is a disgrace.

If you want to protect player safety they should outlaw most any shot to the head. The hit last night in the Oregon Pedo game was just as bad and no targeting. The hit on Cook was not necessary. It's unnecessary roughness plain as day when a player is going to the ground being tackled by three guys and a fourth player comes in late and smashes you in the head.

 

[PhatOrange]

Ok I watched the replay. Just...wow.

View attachment 255562

View attachment 255563
View attachment 255564
View attachment 255565



I hope Johntay is OK today.

These stills make me crazy about the fumble call. There is no way on earth anyway can say his knee is not down. Could it be on a shoe? Sure. Could it be on the turf? Sure. I don't recall of the call on the field was fumble or not. If it wasn't there's no way it should've been overturned.

And I love the last frame where Cook is holding his head. The call is a disgrace.

If you want to protect player safety they should outlaw most any shot to the head. The hit last night in the Oregon Pedo game was just as bad and no targeting. The hit on Cook hk not necessary. It's unnecessary roughness plain as day when a player is going to the ground being tackled by three guys and a fourth player comes in late and smashes you in the head.

 

[Millhouse]

These stills make me crazy about the fumble call. There is no way on earth anyway can say his knee is not down. Could it be on a shoe? Sure. Could it be on the turf? Sure. I don't recall of the call on the field was fumble or not. If it wasn't there's no way it should've been overturned.

And I love the last frame where Cook is holding his head. The call is a disgrace.

If you want to protect player safety they should outlaw most any shot to the head. The hit last night in the Oregon Pedo game was just as bad and no targeting. The hit on Cook hk not necessary. It's unnecessary roughness plain as day when a player is going to the ground being tackled by three guys and a fourth player comes in late and smashes you in the head.

If you're not gonna give the targeting, you just call the guy down at least. No coming sense in this stupid sport

 

[GoSU96]

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??

Horrible deal to benefit for a cheap shot to the head. Need to play tougher. They were slow and soft yesterday.

Hopefully it’s a benchmark Fran uses going forward

 

[JKinUtah]

Horrible deal to benefit for a cheap shot to the head. Need to play tougher. They were slow and soft yesterday.

Hopefully it’s a benchmark Fran uses going forward

Put it on a t shirt and move on.

 

[sufandu]

I've said it over and over. Make the rule that you have to try to tackle. If you make no attempt to wrap up or to shove a guy out of bounds with your hands, it's a penalty. Cross your arms over your chest and lower your shoulder, it's a penalty. If teams watch offenses march down the field at 15 yard clips, they'll change ther techniques.

 

[Orangefan1]

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

He had his head taken off…later that night a play similar in the Alabama game the player got kicked out for a hit far less than what cook got. No question it was a target and non fumble

 

[longtimefan]

That would have been the correct call on the field and subsequent outcome but they did NOT call the PF. Again, I am fine with reviewing for targeting before ejection but if the hit was brutal enough to throw the flag, it should be an unnecessary roughness penalty and the flag cannot be picked up. The only reason for the automatic review is the severity of the penalty but there is no other case where a committed penalty (one caused by contact) can be reversed.

By rule, can they call targeting without calling a personal foul?