Targeting

[Olgoldandwhie]

Remove face masks and let them do whatever. It will stop it.

 

[ScionOfSouthland]

The hard part is the speed of the game. Some scenarios are easier than others. Receiver is coming down out of the air and a player launches into their head? Gonna be targeting. A ball carrier and a tackler both go low for contact, who is at fault? They are both doing what they were taught to do. There isn’t enough time to react in some situations.

 

[GoGATech]

You have to take aim and initiate forcible contact. It's not simply making contact with crown of helmet or helmet to helmet.

I know the rule. What are you arguing? If you are arguing my first point that he still likely would have been called for targeting, I can show you plenty of instances where players did not "take aim" or "initiate forcible contact" but the play resulted in helmet to helmet collisions where the defender was called for targeting. It may not have happened here, but I can easily see it being called because the other part of the rule states "making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player." That's where you get into the subjective definition of "defenseless."

If your are arguing the screenshot I posted, that by rule is the definition of targeting, "Making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet."

 

[GoGATech]

The hard part is the speed of the game. Some scenarios are easier than others. Receiver is coming down out of the air and a player launches into their head? Gonna be targeting. A ball carrier and a tackler both go low for contact, who is at fault? They are both doing what they were taught to do. There isn’t enough time to react in some situations.

Same scenario as early in the game too where the defenseless Clemson receiver was drilled in the back while in mid-air jumping for a high pass. The defender had his head down and just happened to hit with the shoulder. With two moving people, you can't always judge and get your angles exactly perfect. He could've very well easily hit with the crown of his helmet first because his head was down. The whole rule is too subjective and needs to be completely re-written or thrown out.

 

[txsting]

Rule needs to be looked at and refined. That Clemson targeting by the linebacker to me is just football. Perhaps players should not be disqualified , they could make the rule you are out of the game for the next 8 minutes. After all this is football.

I think the DQ is wholly appropriate, and not really that hard to call. We have to get that play out of football. I would also support a heavier penalty based on accumulation; perhaps on your 2nd or 3rd targeting call of the season there is some additional penalty.

 

[txsting]

Same scenario as early in the game too where the defenseless Clemson receiver was drilled in the back while in mid-air jumping for a high pass. The defender had his head down and just happened to hit with the shoulder. With two moving people, you can't always judge and get your angles exactly perfect. He could've very well easily hit with the crown of his helmet first because his head was down. The whole rule is too subjective and needs to be completely re-written or thrown out.

That guy took a real chance by putting his head down, and that was his mistake. He doesn't need to do that. The angles worked out for him on that play, but it was poor form. Next time the angles will shift and he'll get his ejection. If you "see what you hit", you're not going to get into trouble.

 

[interchange]

I know the rule. What are you arguing? If you are arguing my first point that he still likely would have been called for targeting, I can show you plenty of instances where players did not "take aim" or "initiate forcible contact" but the play resulted in helmet to helmet collisions where the defender was called for targeting. It may not have happened here, but I can easily see it being called because the other part of the rule states "making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player." That's where you get into the subjective definition of "defenseless."

If your are arguing the screenshot I posted, that by rule is the definition of targeting, "Making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet."

The scenarios are different for a defenseless player. In the title game and in your screenshot, there is not a defenseless player. There is indeed subjectivity in the rules and there are indeed cases where football instincts or simple unpredictability of what another person is going to do leads to penalties. The scenarios you are highlighting, however, are not controversial in applying the rules.

More broadly, subjectivity is inevitable. You can't define things with perfect precision, and you can't capture everything from every angle in replay much less stop play constantly or expect officials to get things consistently on the field. Oh well. The quest here is to find what's reasonable to expect players to have some control over and comports with data on safety risk and success of penalties affecting tackling behavior.

 

[GoGATech]

The scenarios are different for a defenseless player. In the title game and in your screenshot, there is not a defenseless player. There is indeed subjectivity in the rules and there are indeed cases where football instincts or simple unpredictability of what another person is going to do leads to penalties. The scenarios you are highlighting, however, are not controversial in applying the rules.

I didn't say there was a defenseless player in my screenshot. There does not have to be a defenseless player for targeting to be called. But that image is the definition of targeting by "making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet." That cannot be refuted.

My comments about a defenseless player were about the targeting and ejection call on Skalski. Someone stated that if he gets his head up and the helmets do hit but he is not leading forcibly with his head, that targeting would not be called. I disagree. As I stated, the other definition of targeting is "forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player." If Skalski has his head up and made contact with the ball-carrier's head, he still could've been called for targeting because he hit the head of the the ball-carrier who would fit the description of a "defenseless player" per the following:

Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but 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 feet-first.

 

[User 10337]

The ejection part was put in to act as a significant enough deterrent to this style of tackling. I think the ejection aspect should be discretionary rather than mandatory, though. You hate to see a kid lose out on playing in a huge game for a non-egregious hit.

The rule needs to allow for unintentional hits. I think the best way to do it simply would be to eject after two or three, similar to how soccer does yellow cards.

 

[ElCidBUZZingFAN]

The rule needs to allow for unintentional hits. I think the best way to do it simply would be to eject after two or three, similar to how soccer does yellow cards.

I can't think of a game with multiple targeting calls. It seems to me to be quite a rarity.

Is that because the ejection part of the rule works and people are scared straight or because it's such an infrequent occurrence that keeping a running tally midgame is pointless?

 

[txsting]

In the football I watched this year, I'd wager that there were 0.5/ejections per game. So it's not at all likely that one player would draw two in a game. However, you could keep a running tally and have a full game suspension after, say, every second call. In the premier league, you miss a game when you accumulate 5 yellow cards. In our football, it's more dangerous, so I think in justice you would only get one free pass.

 

[DressCheeseSideSeaboard]

This is another type foul that I think needs to be reviewed in real-time, just like they do with the process of completing a catch to determine whether or not someone had possession of the ball or not. It is so late when he lowers his head it's more of a reaction than anything. His head goes down at the absolute last millisecond, and I disagree with you in the fact that I believe if his head was up and he made contact with the helmet of the receiver, he still would've gotten called for targeting. I think he saw the trajectory he was on and instinctively tried to not hit the receiver in the helmet, thus lowering his head. Also, if lowering the head like that is flagged for a penalty, then why not this?

It just means more.

 

[txsting]

Turns out there is already a three strikes rule, after third offense you miss the full NEXT game. Didn't know that.

 

[interchange]

I didn't say there was a defenseless player in my screenshot. There does not have to be a defenseless player for targeting to be called. But that image is the definition of targeting by "making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet." That cannot be refuted.

My comments about a defenseless player were about the targeting and ejection call on Skalski. Someone stated that if he gets his head up and the helmets do hit but he is not leading forcibly with his head, that targeting would not be called. I disagree. As I stated, the other definition of targeting is "forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player." If Skalski has his head up and made contact with the ball-carrier's head, he still could've been called for targeting because he hit the head of the the ball-carrier who would fit the description of a "defenseless player" per the following:

Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but 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 feet-first.

Here is the official rule:
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 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)
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

The description that you gave of the play in question is that the defender lowered their head to avoid helmet to helmet contact and did not initiate forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. The screenshot is not conclusive but is compatible with your statement. If the forcible contact occurred because the offensive player is running full steam at them, then this is not targeting. Additionally, if the official clearly believes the defender did not intentionally create contract with the crown of the helmet, then he did not "target", although that is subjective and the rule says when in doubt there is a foul. This of course requires that at least one of the indicators of targeting is present, and as you can plainly see lowering the helmet before making forcible contact requires that the defender be the one who initiates the contact. Technically note 1 says indicators are not limited to, but there isn't specific guidance. However, it does clearly state a definition of targeting that states intent to attack with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

In case of the actual target/ejection from the game, there was a clear launch with the crown. That is textbook.

 

[GoGATech]

Here is the official rule:
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 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)
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

The description that you gave of the play in question is that the defender lowered their head to avoid helmet to helmet contact and did not initiate forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. The screenshot is not conclusive but is compatible with your statement. If the forcible contact occurred because the offensive player is running full steam at them, then this is not targeting. Additionally, if the official clearly believes the defender did not intentionally create contract with the crown of the helmet, then he did not "target", although that is subjective and the rule says when in doubt there is a foul. This of course requires that at least one of the indicators of targeting is present, and as you can plainly see lowering the helmet before making forcible contact requires that the defender be the one who initiates the contact. Technically note 1 says indicators are not limited to, but there isn't specific guidance. However, it does clearly state a definition of targeting that states intent to attack with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

In case of the actual target/ejection from the game, there was a clear launch with the crown. That is textbook.

I know the rules and understand them but I still think you are missing my point and confusing the 2 instances. The screenshot has nothing to do with my description of the defender lowering his head to avoid helmet to helmet contact. Let's forget the screenshot all-together for a second and talk about the incident in the game. Skalski did in fact launch and the crown of his helmet is what hit the defender first. If you watch the replay, his head was up and he dropped it at the very last fraction of a second... almost too fast to determine without slow motion replay. Either way, yes there is a launch and he led with the crown of his helmet. That is targeting. I'm not arguing that. My point was that if he in fact lowered his head to avoid a helmet to helmet contact, his intent isn't to attack with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. His intent is to not hit a "defensless player" who is already being tackled in the head/neck area, which would draw a foul for targeting. So my argument was that even if Skalski kept his head up, he could have (and most likely would have) still been flagged for targeting, and that's where there is a problem with the rule. There is almost no legal scenario where he can assist with that tackle, short of slowly jogging over, stopping and grabbing the ball carrier and pulling him down, which IMO is not football.

Now on to the screenshot, which was when Lawrence fumbled the ball. Delpit is clearly initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet, yet this is not flagged for nor ruled as targeting. What is the difference? A player does not have to be defenseless for targeting to be a foul and this is not incidental, it's forcibly leading with the crown.

 

[interchange]

I know the rules and understand them but I still think you are missing my point and confusing the 2 instances. The screenshot has nothing to do with my description of the defender lowering his head to avoid helmet to helmet contact. Let's forget the screenshot all-together for a second and talk about the incident in the game. Skalski did in fact launch and the crown of his helmet is what hit the defender first. If you watch the replay, his head was up and he dropped it at the very last fraction of a second... almost too fast to determine without slow motion replay. Either way, yes there is a launch and he led with the crown of his helmet. That is targeting. I'm not arguing that. My point was that if he in fact lowered his head to avoid a helmet to helmet contact, his intent isn't to attack with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. His intent is to not hit a "defensless player" who is already being tackled in the head/neck area, which would draw a foul for targeting. So my argument was that even if Skalski kept his head up, he could have (and most likely would have) still been flagged for targeting, and that's where there is a problem with the rule. There is almost no legal scenario where he can assist with that tackle, short of slowly jogging over, stopping and grabbing the ball carrier and pulling him down, which IMO is not football.

Now on to the screenshot, which was when Lawrence fumbled the ball. Delpit is clearly initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet, yet this is not flagged for nor ruled as targeting. What is the difference? A player does not have to be defenseless for targeting to be a foul and this is not incidental, it's forcibly leading with the crown.

In the Sklaski case, it would not have been targeting if he kept his head up even if there was forcible contact to the head and neck because the receiver was not defenseless.

There are 2 targeting violations:
1. Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
2. Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

Note the titles. If the player is not defenseless, you cannot target without forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

Now for the second scenario, what indicator was present that the defender intentionally initiated the forcible contact with crown of the helmet? I don't see it on the frame, but I haven't seen it live/replay. I do see his arms outstretched which certainly appears on the frame to be an attempt to grab Lawrence's legs which does not seem to fit with intending to use the helmet as a weapon. But maybe there is an indicator and it was a missed call.

 

[ramblinwise1]

I don't like the targeting rule as being imposed. The replay official should have not called targeting when it wasn't called on the field IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME unless it was blatant head to head. Jury nullification of a sanctimonious PC rule.

 

[GoGATech]

In the Sklaski case, it would not have been targeting if he kept his head up even if there was forcible contact to the head and neck because the receiver was not defenseless.

There are 2 targeting violations:
1. Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
2. Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

Note the titles. If the player is not defenseless, you cannot target without forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

This is where I think they could have called still it. As I stated earlier, per the definition, he could've been deemed "defenseless" because he was engaged with another tackler and forward momentum stopped. Maybe they wouldn't have called it, though. That part we'll never know

Now for the second scenario, what indicator was present that the defender intentionally initiated the forcible contact with crown of the helmet? I don't see it on the frame, but I haven't seen it live/replay. I do see his arms outstretched which certainly appears on the frame to be an attempt to grab Lawrence's legs which does not seem to fit with intending to use the helmet as a weapon. But maybe there is an indicator and it was a missed call.

Skalski's arms are outstretched also (as are most every defender's on every tackle attempt), indicating he is going for a tackle the same as Delpit's. I'm not arguing that Skalski shouldn't have been called because the way the rule is written, that is targeting. I just don't understand how the second scenario isn't also targeting. Just because he didn't hit Lawrence square in the gut, or even worse a knee, with that helmet doesn't erase the fact that he is leading with the crown. I think that has to be called also or the rule needs explicit writing that erases as much subjectivity as possible, or either drop the rule altogether.

 

[interchange]

This is where I think they could have called still it. As I stated earlier, per the definition, he could've been deemed "defenseless" because he was engaged with another tackler and forward momentum stopped. Maybe they wouldn't have called it, though. That part we'll never know

I don't think he was defenseless. There are fuzzy cases about it, so even if your objection doesn't apply here it does apply sometimes. He also didn't have to launch. If there was no indicator of targeting, it wouldn't be a penalty just as the tackle on Lawrence wasn't a penalty despite the contact with the crown of the helmet.

Skalski's arms are outstretched also (as are most every defender's on every tackle attempt), indicating he is going for a tackle the same as Delpit's. I'm not arguing that Skalski shouldn't have been called because the way the rule is written, that is targeting. I just don't understand how the second scenario isn't also targeting. Just because he didn't hit Lawrence square in the gut, or even worse a knee, with that helmet doesn't erase the fact that he is leading with the crown. I think that has to be called also or the rule needs explicit writing that erases as much subjectivity as possible, or either drop the rule altogether.

The rule is explicit in requiring an indicator. It isn't about where the contact occurs or if anyone gets hurt. I do agree that some things look worse than others and thus are more likely to get an official's attention to call.

As for making it more objective, ok. Do you have a proposal of how to rewrite the rule with less subjectivity?

 

[GoGATech]

As for making it more objective, ok. Do you have a proposal of how to rewrite the rule with less subjectivity?

I don't, and I think there's way too much subjectivity in it right now is why I think the rule should be done away with.