|
Replies: 32
| visibility 1
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
Ben and Targeting
Oct 10, 2016, 9:56 AM
|
|
I know the call was overturned, and I know the hit was a violent one, but for the life of me I can't understand why it was called targeting in real time.
The rule(s) for targeting are Rule 9 Articles 3 and 4:
Rule 9 - ARTICLE 3
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
- No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent
with the crown (top) 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)
Rule 9 - ARTICLE 4.
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
- 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):
- 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
So in real time the refs can only make that call if they believe that either:
1) Ben hit him with his helmet (which he clearly did not)
or
2) The QB was a defenseless player (which he clearly was not).
It was a big violent hit that was entirely legal. I'm not sure how it could've been reasonably called targeting in real time. Glad review fixed that, but I'm not sure the logic of throwing the flag in the first place.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
It wasn't so violent. Ref called it because the qbs
Oct 10, 2016, 10:03 AM
|
|
Head snapped back.
I get targeting but it is our of control. You cant fart next to pen st's kicker without getting ejected
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
But that is simply not the rule
Oct 10, 2016, 10:07 AM
|
|
Even if Ben had hit him squarely in the jaw (which he didn't), you'd have to have called unnecessary roughness (which would've been, at least, a judgment call).
Targeting has requirements.
1) Hit the player with the crown of your helmet in their head/neck area (which he clearly didn't)
or
2) Hit a "defenseless" player in the head with your arm, shoulder, head. (which the QB was clearly not defenseless)
I'm fine with the rule being in place. I think it needs to be clarified, and glad it was overturned in this mis-application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17070
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: But that is simply not the rule
Oct 10, 2016, 10:46 AM
|
|
Yeah it looks like the referee just made a mistake.
It should have been unnecessary roughness instead of targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
At least thats a judgment call penalty
Oct 10, 2016, 10:52 AM
|
|
But honestly, you think a forearm to the chest should be "unnecessary roughness?" If you really think so, and hey thats your right, then I'd suggest every time a defender doesn't simply wrap his arms around a ball carrier trying to get a first down then its an unnecessary hit and should be flagged.
It was a big hit that was entirely legal and did its job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17070
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: At least thats a judgment call penalty
Oct 10, 2016, 3:15 PM
|
|
No. I think Ben got extremely lucky he missed his intended target.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
We're throwing flags on assumed intentions now?
Oct 10, 2016, 11:00 AM
|
|
I can't see a thing in this hit that looks like it should've drawn a flag. What, exactly, do you think should've been flagged?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17070
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: We're throwing flags on assumed intentions now?
Oct 10, 2016, 11:05 AM
|
|
I would rather err on the side of caution. There really is no place for those kinds of "tackles" in football.
So I'm ok with the call being reversed because he got lucky and missed. But I'm also ok with it standing to discourage the behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
There's no room in football for a forearm to the shoulder?
Oct 10, 2016, 11:10 AM
|
|
I asked what exactly you think should've been flagged, and your response was "there's no room in football for these 'tackles'"
So, I'm to assume you would be for a rule outlawing forearm-to-the-shoulder hits?
The problem, as I see it, with your logic is that "erring on the side of caution" basically makes it impossible to know what is and isn't allowed. There's a rule book which outlines what is and isn't allowed, and nowhere in it does it mention you can't hit a due in the chest/shoulder with your forearm and in so doing cause a fumble because it looks really violent.
Interestingly enough, I also looked and there I can find zero definition for "unnecessary roughness" in the 2016 rule book. It simply mentions "unnecessary roughness" as a potential penalty without outlining any provisions for it being called. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17070
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: There's no room in football for a forearm to the shoulder?
Oct 10, 2016, 11:15 AM
|
|
I wish I had a gif of Venables face when he laughed at Ben's attempt to justify to hit.
I'm not going to feel bad when a referee throws a flag on a player attempting to tackle a guys throat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
Alright, so you're not going to actually answer
Oct 10, 2016, 11:19 AM
|
|
You're just going to pretend you know what he was thinking, and be cool with flagging folks based on your assumed intentions and preconceived bias.
Cool.
I've asked, and you refuse to answer. Enough of this conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17070
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Alright, so you're not going to actually answer
Oct 10, 2016, 11:26 AM
|
|
That's what adults do Thom.
Imagine if the criminal justice system followed your argument and decided a prosecutor couldn't establish intent without knowing exactly what the accused thought at the time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29205
Joined: 9/14/05
|
Well football field =/= criminal justice system
Oct 10, 2016, 11:33 AM
|
|
except maybe at Williams-Brice Stadium.
Refs throw flags based on what actually happens, not based on what they think the player was intending to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
This is my last message in this particular conversation
Oct 10, 2016, 11:34 AM
[ in reply to Re: Alright, so you're not going to actually answer ] |
|
The law has provisions in place for "attempted" crimes. It's the reason that "attempted homicide" is different from "homicide". There are laws in place which outline behaviors that are seen as "attempts" to do things, but again these are based on actual outline actions rather than believing you can surmise what the person was definitively thinking.
Nice jab at the "adult" comment though.
In football we don't call "attempted holds" or "attempted PI" or things of that sort. We call fouls based on what actually happens on the field.
And Ben's hit was 100% legal according to all rules in the rule book.
We disagree, and this conversation has become fruitless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88961
Joined: 3/27/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56756]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39625
Joined: 11/12/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56756]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39625
Joined: 11/12/04
|
besides, just sit back and enjoy the season we are having.
Oct 10, 2016, 11:24 AM
|
|
and they are having. it is hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17070
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: it's pointless to argue with a coot.
Oct 10, 2016, 11:45 AM
[ in reply to it's pointless to argue with a coot. ] |
|
If Ben had laid out Towles with a good tackle and stood over him ala Swearinger I would have thought it was funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8008]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7958
Joined: 6/30/00
|
Instead Ben laid out Towles with a good tackle and
Oct 10, 2016, 1:27 PM
|
|
showed class by NOT standing over him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2683]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2751
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5960]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5687
Joined: 7/3/12
|
GeeVille Tiger, have you seen the hits the Penn St
Oct 10, 2016, 10:57 AM
[ in reply to It wasn't so violent. Ref called it because the qbs ] |
|
kicker has taken. Clearly cheap shots, bit times play over and opposing player takes shot at him. I don't care that he weighs more than any other kicker, he gets same protection and those shots, even if kicker embellishes a bit, are unsportsmanlike and deserve penalties.
That said, the comment made me laugh in my office here(shhh don't tell anyone).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1806]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1888
Joined: 1/31/12
|
Targeting could have been called pursuant to Art. 4, Rule 9
Oct 10, 2016, 10:17 AM
|
|
by making "forcible contact to the head or neck area of the opponent with the... hand." Again, in Note 1, it mentions leading with the hands to make forcible contact with the head or neck area. The reason the flag was thrown is because the hit looked violent b/c Ben is that strong. All he did was push the guy square in the chest, causing the ball to dislodge and the QB to fall backward.
The refs saw the QB snap backward like a rag doll and assumed that Ben made a hit to his head/neck area. It was a knee jerk reaction to protect that QB, but the replay team got it right and corrected the call. I am dismayed that the refs act so quick to flag Boulware on a really incredible football play, however, he popped that QB so hard, I think most refs thought he couldn't have made that play without targeting of some kind.
Again, the replay team did a good job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
That only applies on a defenseless player
Oct 10, 2016, 10:20 AM
|
|
The QB was a runner at the time and not defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1806]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1888
Joined: 1/31/12
|
I thought you didn't have to be defenseless to still be
Oct 10, 2016, 10:38 AM
|
|
"targeted" under the rule. Without reading Note 2, it appears that making forcible contact to the head/neck area of any player, regardless of circumstance, with the intent to make contact that transcends that of a normal football play could earn a targeting call.
I could be reading the rule incorrectly, but I don't think you must be labeled "defenseless" in order to earn a targeting call. That QB was by no means defenseless. I don't think that is what earned the call. I think it was his immediate snapping back after getting hit high that garnered the [nonsense] call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
My reading
Oct 10, 2016, 10:43 AM
|
|
Article 3 does not require you to be a defenseless player, but it DOES require the player being called for targeting to have used the top of his helmet.
Article 4 gives allows for a other forms of "targeting" to be called (arm to the head, etc) but only against a defenseless player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1806]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1888
Joined: 1/31/12
|
you have swayed me...
Oct 10, 2016, 10:44 AM
|
|
Either reading, the refs made a bad call. I'm just glad that we still gained possession on the fumble and that Ben was not ejected. We'll need him this week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9113
Joined: 1/15/08
|
Thing is the QB was clearly a RB in that position.
Oct 10, 2016, 11:30 AM
[ in reply to Targeting could have been called pursuant to Art. 4, Rule 9 ] |
|
He had crossed the line of scrimmage and was running at that point (not to scrambling to throw but running to gain yards) The QB protection rules are off the board and he is just another player with the ball in his hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [574]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 777
Joined: 10/11/07
|
Re: Ben and Targeting
Oct 10, 2016, 10:18 AM
|
|
Speaking of targeting. I thought the Miami safety got a bum call against FSU. He hit the receiver with his shoulder. Everyone's so scared of concussions these days. They call everything. I can honestly say. I had 8 concussions when I played. I played from 4th grade through 12th. But they didn't take them seriously back then. Unless you completely lost consciousness, you received smelling salts, missed a few plays. And that was it, you went back out and finished the game.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [682]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 1003
Joined: 9/8/14
|
Re: Ben and Targeting
Oct 10, 2016, 10:21 AM
|
|
Targeting was called by a ref who didn't want Clemson to win.so he tried to help any way he could. I have seen recently more bad calls than good ones. In the Louisville game a ref ruled a Deshawm pass a lateral when he, and the wide receiver were at least 3-4 yards ahead of the passer. That also was overturned but it is another example of the bias in throwing flags. It's apparent to me that 90% of the refs are bias regardless of what they say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58357
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: Ben and Targeting
Oct 10, 2016, 10:27 AM
|
|
tiger thom, for the sake of the argument of that play, it was targeting by the way the rule is written. Go back to the video, put the video in slow motion, start it at the 33 second point and watch. But before you do this, let me tell you that I am pro Ben Boulware, he is one of my most favorite players on our team, and I love him as a Clemson player. But in the video, you will see that Ben launched himself off his feet and his forearm hit the player in the side of his neck and in the head. If you call the hit as the rule states, it was targeting. Ben got away with it, and I'm glad that he did. BV wasn't all in Ben's face chewing him a new one bc Ben made a textbook tackle. He was chewing Ben a new one bc he actually saw how close Ben was of not being with the defence for 4 quarters!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
I don't see any rule that would apply
Oct 10, 2016, 10:41 AM
|
|
I see 2 rules in question:
[Article 3]
This makes it illegal to hit an opponent with the the top of your helmet. Ben didn't do this.
and
[ARTICLE 4]
This makes it illegal to his a defenseless player int he head/neck area. The running QB was NOT a defenseless player as outlined in note 2, so the fact that something applied to the hit in Note 1 is immaterial.
Neither rule applied, and I can't see how, even in real time, it was ever thought to be targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10867]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15038
Joined: 8/6/10
|
The whole targeting nonsense is ruining football.
Oct 10, 2016, 10:46 AM
|
|
The problem is that some players launch at other players with their head down, and good players don't. There's been a rule against this for as long as I can remember. Now they have this new rule "targeting" that they are over-emphasizing because of media pressure. It's nonsense and it's ruining football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [15]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 60
Joined: 9/23/16
|
Re: The whole targeting nonsense is ruining football.
Oct 10, 2016, 10:48 AM
|
|
Let the boys play!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 32
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
