| FTBL Another annual tradition: The targeting question(s) remain; yes or no on this hit from Ohio State vs Minnesota.

[TerryP]

In my opinion two no's here: on the catch and targeting. It's easy to see the ball's out and I'm looking at the receiver watching OSU's defensive back: he's not defenseless if he sees the defender coming AND you can see the receiver lowering his shoulder preparing for the hit.

Coincidental helmet to helmet.

 

[rammerjammer]

In my opinion two no's here: on the catch and targeting. It's easy to see the ball's out and I'm looking at the receiver watching OSU's defensive back: he's not defenseless if he sees the defender coming AND you can see the receiver lowering his shoulder preparing for the hit.

Coincidental helmet to helmet.

This is what makes this call is so difficult. It is sooooo subjective, not only conference to conference, but crew to crew, official to official.

This would be called targeting 99.9% of the time. Incidental or not, it was helmet to helmet and they typically call it as such.

For this very reason, I feel that they need to cut the penalty from ejection to the 15 yard penalty and maybe sit out for 15 minutes. ie 1 quarter of play.

 

[bamaledge]

I agree that it is subjective, but in my opinion it was targeting. The osu player, somewhat, “launched” and lowered his helmet and struck helmet to helmet.
If the aggressor was an Alabama player, he’ll yeah they would have called targeting.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Looked pretty goood.....but close either way

 

[OldPlayer]

They are supposed to call all “close” plays as targeting is always reviewed for verification. IMO, this was targeting if only for the fact of helmet to helmet. The receiver was also defenseless. The purpose of the rule is to prevent headshots.

@rammerjammer - your idea of sitting out for 15 minutes can’t be enforced. Who monitors the time?

 

[rammerjammer]

@rammerjammer - your idea of sitting out for 15 minutes can’t be enforced. Who monitors the time?

I would imagine one of the review booth officials could do it. Hell, they are in communication with SEC offices in B'ham. I'm sure some minion running around can calculate up 15 minutes and make sure he doesn't enter before that. Either way, I think the penalty should be lessened on the player himself. The team already pays the price with the 15 yards and a first down. Cut back on the whole game situation. Make it a half at least. Anything would be better as long as it would be a little less on the player.

 

[BamaFan334]

No way was that targeting. The receiver took three steps and made a move to absorb the blow. No crown of the helmet, no intentional contact to the head or neck area, so therefor no forceable contact. The receiver crunched his body down and took away his body from the defender. The defender had his head up and made a great hit. I do not understand the booth ref stating defenseless player when he made a football move and tucked himself. I am glad they got this call right, because nothing there would explain targeting.

 

[BamaFan334]

They are supposed to call all “close” plays as targeting is always reviewed for verification. IMO, this was targeting if only for the fact of helmet to helmet. The receiver was also defenseless. The purpose of the rule is to prevent headshots.

@rammerjammer - your idea of sitting out for 15 minutes can’t be enforced. Who monitors the time?

Defenseless? He took three steps and lowered his head for impact. How on Earth would you call that defenseless?

On top of it, pretty sure he clips his shoulder before he slides to the head. Head up, receiver dropped his head, no way that's targeting. You played ball, not every hard hit is targeting.

 

[94 Grad]

Defenseless? He took three steps and lowered his head for impact. How on Earth would you call that defenseless?

On top of it, pretty sure he clips his shoulder before he slides to the head. Head up, receiver dropped his head, no way that's targeting. You played ball, not every hard hit is targeting.

Not sure where you get 3 steps from... watching the slow motion replay, he got 1 1/2 steps in and really didn't make a "move" before the hit. The hit was to the shoulder/neck/head area and I believe IF the player is determined defenseless, then it would be considered targeting.

Now, what is the definition of "defenseless" in this situation? That gets pretty confusing to me, but it's the KEY to if the is or isn't targeting.

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.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst.

This is the subjective part of the call... it says nothing about "steps" taken... just has he had time to protect himself or become a ball carrier ? Me viewing that replay says he is defenseless... others will see it not so much that way.

The penalty of ejection is too great a penalty to have so much "subjective" determination involved, in my opinion. Remove the ejection or leave it in place for some sort of determinable flagrant infraction.

 

['65 Cobra]

In the old days, totally clean play and a nice stick. Nowadays... Receiver was hit before his second step touched down. Defender did have his head up, but he was definitely aiming high and for the receiver's head and shoulders. I don't like the rules today, but the defender definitely had time to aim lower. Even so, it seems like there was nearly simultaneous contact with head and shoulders. That one could've gone either way.

 

[BamaFan334]

Not sure where you get 3 steps from... watching the slow motion replay, he got 1 1/2 steps in and really didn't make a "move" before the hit. The hit was to the shoulder/neck/head area and I believe IF the player is determined defenseless, then it would be considered targeting.

Now, what is the definition of "defenseless" in this situation? That gets pretty confusing to me, but it's the KEY to if the is or isn't targeting.


This is the subjective part of the call... it says nothing about "steps" taken... just has he had time to protect himself or become a ball carrier ? Me viewing that replay says he is defenseless... others will see it not so much that way.

The penalty of ejection is too great a penalty to have so much "subjective" determination involved, in my opinion. Remove the ejection or leave it in place for some sort of determinable flagrant infraction.

Excuse me, his feet hit the ground three times between catch and getting hit. Him tucking is not defenseless. This is what makes the difference between a normal athlete and an elite athlete, reaction time. One of us likely gets drilled and doesn't see it coming. He clearly sees him and tucks his head for impact, he just doesn't get fully tucked.

By your words above, Jaylen Waddle should never get hit when he leaves his feet, but he did a lot during his time at Alabama and took hits every time, mostly in the back.

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

There are two rules on targeting. One for "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet" (9-1-3) and one for "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player" (9-1-4). The first foes not require the defenseless player, just that it meet one indicator of targeting. The second requires one indicator of targeting as well as a defenseless player.

In this particular instance, the area above the face mask (definition of the crown is area above the face mask) on the defensive player made forcible contact with the offensive player and one indicator of targeting exists (pick any. launch, tuck, etc). There is no requirement he be defenseless for this to be targeting.

 

[BamaFan334]

There are two rules on targeting. One for "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet" (9-1-3) and one for "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player" (9-1-4). The first foes not require the defenseless player, just that it meet one indicator of targeting. The second requires one indicator of targeting as well as a defenseless player.

In this particular instance, the area above the face mask (definition of the crown is area above the face mask) on the defensive player made forcible contact with the offensive player and one indicator of targeting exists (pick any. launch, tuck, etc). There is no requirement he be defenseless for this to be targeting.

It's a whole other thing when the "victim" lowers himself. Refs have made that clear, albeit rarely, if a guy tucks, targeting goes out the window. They have said a defensive player cannot account for a guy lowering his body or head to embrace for contact in instances like this. Crown of the helmet was not used, his facemask was. He saw what he was hitting. In all honesty, why even wear helmets if it's considered targeting if they make contact?

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

It's a whole other thing when the "victim" lowers himself. Refs have made that clear, albeit rarely, if a guy tucks, targeting goes out the window. They have said a defensive player cannot account for a guy lowering his body or head to embrace for contact in instances like this. Crown of the helmet was not used, his facemask was. He saw what he was hitting. In all honesty, why even wear helmets if it's considered targeting if they make contact?

There is the difference between the rule as written and as applied. I was just point out that all the arguing about defenseless matters not in this case if the crown of the helmet of the defensive player was the point of contact (I believe it was). I personally would have no issue with the rul being applied to defensive and offensive players. If a receiver ducks so that it becomes targeting then they should get thrown out for it. In some cases that might make both players get ejected but so be it. Maybe that would force the rule to be rewritten to actually work.

 

[rick4bama]

Once I figure targeting out! Someone go and charge it!

 

[Davestwin]

In my opinion two no's here: on the catch and targeting. It's easy to see the ball's out and I'm looking at the receiver watching OSU's defensive back: he's not defenseless if he sees the defender coming AND you can see the receiver lowering his shoulder preparing for the hit.

Coincidental helmet to helmet.

All I know is I would hate to be a defensive player today … especially a safety. I realize I’m old but they’ve made it possible for anyone to be a top flight receiver. Back in the day, a willingness to go across the middle separated the great ones from everyone else. Of course, I also know they’re implementing these rules for player safety but they’re applying them so inconsistently that it’s difficult for players to know what they can or can’t do.

 

[OldPlayer]

All I know is I would hate to be a defensive player today … especially a safety. I realize I’m old but they’ve made it possible for anyone to be a top flight receiver. Back in the day, a willingness to go across the middle separated the great ones from everyone else. Of course, I also know they’re implementing these rules for player safety but they’re applying them so inconsistently that it’s difficult for players to know what they can or can’t do.

I don't think I could play today (besides my age). In my day, we focused on hitting the receiver to send a message and to inflict pain. Hurt, yes. Injure, no. The purpose of the rule is safety, for both players. Head-to-head contact is dangerous.

 

[Tidestalker]

Looks like a good play to me. Tough to stop the dude in mid stride and get him to sign a "I'm not a defenseless player" waiver before dropping the hammer...

Brings up another point - Coaches have to juggle the idea of when to get their best players off the field with a 2nd half lead. Risk vs Reward when there's a big opponent on next week's schedule.

 

[64Tide]

Somewhat related, yesterday vs today...Jack Lambert, on having to take it easy on NFL QBs, "I think they should make them wear a dress". No telling how many cities would be burned if that was said in today's "pussified America".

 

[Davestwin]

I don't think I could play today (besides my age). In my day, we focused on hitting the receiver to send a message and to inflict pain. Hurt, yes. Injure, no. The purpose of the rule is safety, for both players. Head-to-head contact is dangerous.

I couldn’t play today either Old Player. I played SS and was charged with discouraging our opponent’s receivers from coming across the middle. And God help a receiver who went up in the air trying to catch a ball he couldn’t have caught with a ten foot net. Back then, hitting a player who just missed a pass not only wasn’t penalized it was expected and cheered for loudly. Talk about defenseless players … there wasn’t any helmet to helmet contact but there was definitely helmet to the middle of the back contact. Something our coach called turning a little “l” into a parenthesis (.