Targeting

[TxFrog1999]

a lot has been said about the ruling of the hit that took Turpin out of the game, specifically concerning the defenseless player rule. Well, here is the definition of a defenseless player (I bolded the relevant part):

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

It’s pretty clear the call was wrong and I hope TCU flies a complaint with the conference.

 

[CountryFrog]

This is accurate. Plus, even if he wasn't defenseless, at no time can you launch yourself helmet first into another player's helmet.

That play checked off so many boxes of what qualifies as targeting that it's insane. Then a few plays later we have a DB called for PI because his hand made slight contact with a receivers hip.

 

[Bonner4Prez]

It was blatant targeting.

 

[Shorty]

If the refs can say it doesn't meet the rule then the rule needs to change because that is exactly the type of hit they are trying to eliminate.

 

[Peacefrog]

Did their team and particularly the player that hit Turpin in the head celebrate after the targeting was called off?

 

[froginmn]

One thing I don't understand about targeting calls is why they don't call "unnecessary roughness with targeting". I recall this being called in the past but don't recall whether it was college or pro.

Seems like there are plenty of hits ruled to not be targeting (after review) but that are still UR, where a player goes up high.

 

[CountryFrog]

One thing I don't understand about targeting calls is why they don't call "unnecessary roughness with targeting". I recall this being called in the past but don't recall whether it was college or pro.

Seems like there are plenty of hits ruled to not be targeting (after review) but that are still UR, where a player goes up high.

Unnecessary roughness is typically something that happens after the play or not within the normal context of a play. You can have both UR and targeting called but I don't think that play would qualify as unnecessary roughness since it happened within the normal context of the play.

If he'd done the same thing after the whistle had been blown then you get roughness with targeting.

 

[Paint It Purple]

a lot has been said about the ruling of the hit that took Turpin out of the game, specifically concerning the defenseless player rule. Well, here is the definition of a defenseless player (I bolded the relevant part):

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

It’s pretty clear the call was wrong and I hope TCU flies a complaint with the conference.

Just pasted your post in a tweet to Big12 twitter feed on this game. Be interesting to see others do the same. FWIW

 

[MTfrog5]

Here is another example I think from the same refs overturning a targeting call last week as well.

 

[MadFrog]

The NCAA needs to drop the targeting rule and just let the refs on the field call unnecessary roughness WITHOUT a stupid booth review. The booth reviews are pathetic. However, the refs on the field are clearly experts on knee pads. Clearly that is more critical to the game.

 

[RollToad]

Here is another example I think from the same refs overturning a targeting call last week as well.

Someone should target Matt Mosley. I’d be ok with that.

 

[BABYFACE]

Several things:
1) leading with crown of the helmet into the head of ball carrier, receiver, or QB has always been a personal foul before the targeting rule was put in place.

2) It appears that Big 12 replay officials in multiple instances so far this season have waived off targeting when it looked like targeting.

Conclusion:
I was initially glad when targeting calls went to automatic replay review so that calls that weren’t targeting could get reversed. However, it appears that replay officials do not want to confirm targeting for whatever the reason is. If it is the ejection of a player that is influencing their judgment, then do away with the targeting rule and go back to calling it a personal foul. No review, no ejection, but the penalty stands.

 

[CountryFrog]

The NCAA needs to drop the targeting rule and just let the refs on the field call unnecessary roughness WITHOUT a stupid booth review. The booth reviews are pathetic. However, the refs on the field are clearly experts on knee pads. Clearly that is more critical to the game.

I STRONGLY disagree that the booth review should be removed. I know it got royally up last night but that was due to incompetence, not a bad process. It's just as likely you will have incompetence from on field officials as someone in a booth. Remember that ridiculous call against Wallow that got overturned against OSU? The guys in the booth have a lot more resources at their disposal to be able to see what truly happened on a play.

 

[froginmn]

Unnecessary roughness is typically something that happens after the play or not within the normal context of a play. You can have both UR and targeting called but I don't think that play would qualify as unnecessary roughness since it happened within the normal context of the play.

If he'd done the same thing after the whistle had been blown then you get roughness with targeting.

Respectfully disagree, as after looking, the targeting rule states that if targeting is not in conjunction with another personal foul, the penalty isn't enforced. I don't think the rulebook really even mentions unnecessary roughness as a specific penalty, but certainly doesn't limit it to dead ball actions.

I guess my point is that they have over emphasized targeting in the rules, to the point that contact to another player's helmet, if he is not defenseless, isn't properly punished.

 

[CountryFrog]

Respectfully disagree, as after looking, the targeting rule states that if targeting is not in conjunction with another personal foul, the penalty isn't enforced. I don't think the rulebook really even mentions unnecessary roughness as a specific penalty, but certainly doesn't limit it to dead ball actions.

I guess my point is that they have over emphasized targeting in the rules, to the point that contact to another player's helmet, if he is not defenseless, isn't properly punished.

I never said it was limited to dead ball actions. I was just giving you one example that happened to be a dead ball of how roughness could be called.

It can also be called during a play on something like a blind side peel back block that happens 40 yards away from a play. That could be unnecessary roughness and if it happened with a helmet to helmet launch then would also be targeting.

Last night's play was just a guy coming in to make a tackle, which is a normal football play. So you only have a targeting call due to the helmet to helmet launch.

 

[Fred Garvin]

Reggie the ref and his clown crew were up to their usual tricks last night. I knew it was going to be a sheising as soon as I saw he was working the game. Some of their pass interference and PI non-calls were so bad it was laughable. Their safety wrapped up and tackled one of our receivers deep and it doesn't get called? One of our defenders body brushes against their receiver and he gets flagged? The reversal of the targeting call was ridiculous as well. The guy blindsided Turpin in the head while he was being held up by two other players! Not to mention numerous questionable spots of the ball in key situations.

 

[RollToad]

Reggie the ref and his clown crew were up to their usual tricks last night. I knew it was going to be a sheising as soon as I saw he was working the game. Some of their pass interference and PI non-calls were so bad it was laughable. Their safety wrapped up and tackled one of our receivers deep and it doesn't get called? One of our defenders body brushes against their receiver and he gets flagged? The reversal of the targeting call was ridiculous as well. The guy blindsided Turpin in the head while he was being held up by two other players! Not to mention numerous questionable spots of the ball in key situations.

Helen Keller could call a better game.

 

[Fred Garvin]

Helen Keller could call a better game.

The amazing Kreskin, dead in his grave could call a better game.

 

[froginmn]

Rule was changed in 2014:

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...no-longer-penalized-overturned-targeting-call

My opinion is that if the hit was high enough to appear to be targeting but overturned as targeting after review, it should still be a 15 yard penalty, just without the ejection.

Are we allowing hits to the helmet as long as the receiver isn't defenseless? Bad idea IMO.

 

[flyfishingfrog]

Rule was changed in 2014:

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...no-longer-penalized-overturned-targeting-call

My opinion is that if the hit was high enough to appear to be targeting but overturned as targeting after review, it should still be a 15 yard penalty, just without the ejection.

Are we allowing hits to the helmet as long as the receiver isn't defenseless? Bad idea IMO.

The only thing that changed is last year, even if they decision was made it was not targeting - then 15 yd penalty still applied but the player was not ejected - which frankly seemed stupid as the rule was written but then led to the current rule which to my understanding is that now there is a) targeting and then b) targeting a defenseless player.

a) is based on a couple of things happening like helmet to helmet AND leading with head or launching or a few other things.
b) is a) plus a player that is in one of several different situations like in the process of catching, in the grasp of another player with momentum stopped etc.

If it is just targeting - its only 15 yds.

If its targeting a defenseless player - its 15yds plus ejection.

Last night on Turpin was definitely targeting - probably borderline defenseless but the officials were wrong in overturning it only because they didn't deem him defenseless...