|
Replies: 21
| visibility 1
|
Mascot [24]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 60
Joined: 3/13/14
|
Targeting Rule
Oct 19, 2016, 5:34 PM
|
|
Thought I understood targeting rule applies when a defensive player launches his body, leading with headgear, contacting head or neck area of opponent. After watching the hit on Wayne G in NC St game several times, I see no other conclusion as defender launched & smashed Wayne squarely in the jaw with crown of his helmet, knocking him out. Yet refs made no call. Were the refs wrong or am I?
|
|
|
|
 |
Varsity [225]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 339
Joined: 6/27/15
|
Re: Targeting Rule
Oct 19, 2016, 5:36 PM
|
|
They both went low if I recall right. Wayne wasn't defenseless so there's no targeting to be called. It's over, what could be done about it now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [203]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 308
Joined: 9/30/16
|
BS
Oct 19, 2016, 5:45 PM
|
|
There is nothing in the rulebook that resembles whatever you think you're saying. You're right, it's over and we won, but you're flat out wrong on your statement about targeting. The guy from NCSU led with his helmet and didn't even make an effort to wrap Wayne up, i.e., it was targeting. Go Tigers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6575]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5488
Joined: 9/22/16
|
Re: Targeting Rule
Oct 19, 2016, 5:45 PM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting Rule ] |
|
This has been discussed 1000 times already on here.
Player does not have to be defenseless to be targeting. Any defender initiating contact/leading with the crown of his helmet is considered targeting per the rule book. Doesn't matter what/who/when/where the runner is doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [225]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 339
Joined: 6/27/15
|
Re: Targeting Rule
Oct 19, 2016, 5:48 PM
|
|
What I was saying is the defender went low to wrap up the legs like most defenders do and wayne did the same resulting in head to head contact. It was a bang bang play, it's football people get hurt everyday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [203]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 308
Joined: 9/30/16
|
LOL. "Bang bang play"
Oct 19, 2016, 5:52 PM
|
|
Is that the sound that was made when the NCSU guy smashed his helmet into Wayne's chin?
It was targeting. Period. It matters little now, but it was NO DOUBT targeting. Stop the nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2371]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1997
Joined: 11/7/14
|
Watch the replay
Oct 19, 2016, 5:56 PM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting Rule ] |
|
#8 (Wright) launched his body head-first with his arms by his sides. Kinda hard to "wrap up" the ball carrier with your arms by your sides.
If you also will watch the entire game, this was not the only instance of #8 leading with the crown of his helmet.
In the officials' defense, I didn't see the "targeting" until I saw it (a) on replay and (b) in slo-mo. It happened so fast. Still and all, he led with the head, and made contact with the head... therefore, by definition of the rule, it was "targeting."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [225]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 339
Joined: 6/27/15
|
Re: Watch the replay
Oct 19, 2016, 6:05 PM
|
|
Maybe should have used another term besides wrap up but basically all I'm saying is if the ncstate defender would have been a clemson defender it would be completely different on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2371]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1997
Joined: 11/7/14
|
Without a doubt...
Oct 19, 2016, 6:14 PM
|
|
Also, the term "wrap up" is mentioned in defining the targeting rule. It was totally appropriate for you to use the term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [24]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 60
Joined: 3/13/14
|
Re: Watch the replay
Oct 19, 2016, 10:53 PM
[ in reply to Re: Watch the replay ] |
|
NO, not trying to say bad non-call or right call. I'm trying to say that as I understand the (rather significant) targeting rule, that particular play WAS a violation. What the hell, sometimes it's called, or not. Lots of confusion here for both refs & spectators for such an important rule. Really hate rules that are mostly subjective or interpretive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3728]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4857
Joined: 11/4/03
|
Swinney can go to the ACC officiating committee and...
Oct 19, 2016, 5:45 PM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting Rule ] |
|
...petition that Dravious Wright be suspended from the next game. It WAS targeting. I'm sick and tired of NO CALLS against players that are targeting Clemson offensive players. Mark Fields had his head taken off by a UNC player in last year's ACCCG, but NO CALL.
There is no reason to not take this complaint up with the ACC officiating committee.
PATHETIC, PATHETIC, DISGUSTING, SICKENING....'nuff said!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [203]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 308
Joined: 9/30/16
|
Exactly. That and we had a targeting call in the ACCCG that
Oct 19, 2016, 5:48 PM
|
|
was reviewed and not overturned even though it was clearly shoulder contact. It clearly was NOT targeting, yet the replay bozo let the call stand. At least justice was served in our win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2371]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1997
Joined: 11/7/14
|
The reason that almost 100% of targeting calls "stand"
Oct 19, 2016, 6:09 PM
|
|
is the replay officials have their hands tied. What the replay officials SHOULD be looking at with the benefit of slow motion and multiple angles is "did the offender make contact within the definition of 'targeting'?" Instead, they have to say unequivocally that the officials on the field, WITHOUT the benefit of slow motion and multiple angles, were WRONG. IMO, what needs happen in the replay booth is that the replay officials need to look at the play and ask the question, "was this targeting?" Instead, they are looking at the play and asking the question, "was the on-field official, beyond the shadow of a doubt, WRONG?"
I just don't like the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20884]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4483
Joined: 6/27/05
|
Rule 9-1-3 is all you need to know
Oct 19, 2016, 6:16 PM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting Rule ] |
|
No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1239]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1922
Joined: 10/25/15
|
Defenseless has nothing to do with it...
Oct 19, 2016, 8:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting Rule ] |
|
when a defensive player leads the tackle with the crown of his helmet. And it doesn't matter too where it hits. It doesn't have to be helmet to helmet.
Read the rules and stop posting what you didn't know.
According to the most recent rule book (2016-2017):
https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4430-2016-and-2017-ncaa-football-rules-and-interpretations.aspx
There are two separate articles concerning targeting (ARTICLE 3 and ARTICLE 4), page FR-87:
1) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. 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)
and
2) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. 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)
Download it and read it for yourself.
If you want something easier to read, check out this article:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55308]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58360
Joined: 7/18/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6654]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 9725
Joined: 9/22/11
|
That non-call turned the game in their favor.
Oct 19, 2016, 6:07 PM
|
|
The same NCS player who was not penalized and kicked out caused two of the fumbles. If it had been called, we probable would have won by three tds!
Boulware would have been called with a similar hit,and thrown out of game and probable suspended for season, and the media would still be talkimg about what a thug he is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2371]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1997
Joined: 11/7/14
|
Are you kidding?
Oct 19, 2016, 6:12 PM
|
|
If Boulware had made that hit, he would have put in jail without bail... as Wright should have been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6654]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 9725
Joined: 9/22/11
|
" If Boulware had made that hit, he would have put in jail."
Oct 19, 2016, 6:55 PM
|
|
THKS FOR MAKING MY PT. NOT KIDDING!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10488]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7757
Joined: 12/5/15
|
Re: Targeting Rule
Oct 19, 2016, 6:37 PM
|
|
I agree that it was a bang bang play. When I saw it live, I couldn't tell what happened because it was so fast and the camera angle on the TV was from behind and on the wrong side. As soon as they showed the replay from the front side, I was 100% certain that it was targeting.
TARGETING can be called be the replay official even when there was no call on the field. It's a new rule. I can understand the officials on the field missing that call, but the replay official is flat out of excuses. If that hit is not targeting, then there is simply no such thing as targeting.
Here is the rule-
Targeting: An Expanded Role for Instant Replay
By rule, every targeting foul is reviewed by the instant replay official. Up to this point, the replay official's role has been to verify whether the forcible contact was with the crown of the helmet or was struck at the head or neck area of a defenseless player. Now as part of the review, the replay official is directed to examine all elements of the ruling made by the official on the field, not only the location of the forcible contact. In addition, the replay official is empowered to "create" a foul if he sees an obvious and egregious targeting action that the officials on the field miss. Because the action is so dangerous and the ejection penalty so severe, the committee has made these changes to increase the probability that targeting fouls are correctly ruled and administered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [24]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 60
Joined: 3/13/14
|
Re: Targeting Rule
Oct 19, 2016, 11:22 PM
|
|
Not trying to say bad non-call or right call. I'm trying to say that as I understand the (rather significant) targeting rule, that particular play WAS a violation. What the ####, sometimes it's called, or not. Lots of confusion here for both refs & spectators for such an important rule. Really hate rules that are mostly subjective or interpretive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6654]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 9725
Joined: 9/22/11
|
~this~***
Oct 20, 2016, 3:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
