Targeting Rule

[LeRoy Willis]

First of all, I am not an official and have deep respect for anyone willing to accept that responsibility. As a league official (TCAF) I received two phone calls after two different scrimmages on Saturday discussing the targeting rule. One was, as I was told, clearly a interference call as his safety made contact with the receiver early and the second call I received was that his running back was called for targeting while lowering his shoulder to absorb the contact by the tackler. In the second call I was told he would have had four players ejected had it been a regular game. Most six man teams cannot afford to lose 1 player much less 4.

As had already been stated here targeting is clearly contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, had, first, elbow or shoulder. This seems to be clear enough. Also already defined is what a defenseless players is.

Can an offensive running back be called for targeting simply for trying to gain extra yards and absorbing the contact by the defensive player?

We have no instant replay obviously, advice as how to handle these calls would be helpful.

Also note that each of the scrimmages were officiated by different chapters which also seems to be a problem. In the scrimmages I was involved in, which was a different chapter from the other two, no calls were made that would have disqualified a player.

 

[CoachBurger]

*bump*

We really need to get the Targeting Rule clarified. I cannot afford to lose a player to an ejection from my squad of 11.

 

[HP Drifter]

Better get with official chapters.

 

[freeagent]

Better get with official chapters.

Okay coaches, how about opinions on this. Would it be opening a can-o-worms to inquire with the officials prior to the contest on what they (or their chapter) considers an "ejectionable" foul under the targeting rule?

Or is it better to keep thy pie-hole in the closed position and see what happens during the game?

 

[Shad Kline]

Not a coach, but I wouldn't wanna be putting the thought in the front of the most recent thoughts line.

 

[fencewire]

The NFL has added a specific rule to make it a foul for the offensive ball carrier to strike a defensive player with the crown of their helmet.

The NCAA and subsequently Texas HS football do not have that specificity, yet..

However... There are two rules in play here and depending on the hits in question, you could potentially have a 9-1-3 infraction. However, in all of the videos that have been produced, there has not been one instance where the ball carrier was noted for this behavior from the NCAA.

9-1-3 deals with targeting of an opponent with the crown of the helmet. The crown is generally considered the top of the helmet such that the player would have to be looking at the ground while delivering a blow (most people would use the term 'spearing' even though spearing has been removed from the rule book for a while).

9-1-4 deals with the targeting of a defenseless player above the shoulders.

Where a 'defenseless player' falls into one of these categories...

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a 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. • 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.

This is a list of guidelines and not a definitive list, but they cover almost anything that might present itself. It is important to always note that just because a player is 'defenseless' it doesn't mean they can't be blocked, they just can't be 'targeted'.

You can still get unessary roughness penalties that aren't targeting, say a cleanup block 30 yards behind the ball, that would still get you 15 most likely, but as long as the contact didnt have a targeting component the penalty would not include a DQ.

But there has been no direction, at this point, that we should be flagging offensive players even for using the crown of their helmet. Although, I suppose by the letter of the rule it might be covered, I am not going to throw on that.

This is all done by the NCAA rules committee (made of coaches) in the name of safety. It is also important to note that the fouls themselves have not changed from previous years, only the penalties associated with the foul.

Theoretically, you should see no more of these this year than in previous seasons, but with increased emphasis and discussion, inevitably, there will be more seen due to people going out and looking for something that might not even be there.

 

[LeRoy Willis]

"Theoretically, you should see no more of these this year than in previous seasons, but with increased emphasis and discussion, inevitably, there will be more seen due to people going out and looking for something that might not even be there."

Fencewire your last statement is of great concern. I agree with you that early on at least, some officials will see things that aren't there and we will see players ejected and the possibility of games being cancelled just because small schools do not have an excess of players. If I read the NCAA rule correctly that if a player is ejected then that player not only must set out the game in question but cannot be in view of that game and is disqualified from the first half of the next game (someone correct me if I have misread the rule). TCAF goes even further and requires and ejected player to set out the entire next game. In the past we at TCAF have had only a few ejections so we have not had a major problem but it seems the landscape has changed. One of the phone calls I received on Saturday, if the rule had been enforced as seen by the officials who were there, their week 0 game would have to have been cancelled due to not having enough players. Since it was a scrimmage the rule of course was not enforced.

My view on speaking with the officials before the game is that maybe they could see we are aware of the rules and that at least we are coaching our players properly. Not at all sure if that would make a difference but at least we would have tried.

 

[HP Drifter]

If said incidents occurred, then if you "clam" up and are afraid to mention it happened, then how does the chapter correct it? If you have film, Hudl, whatever, send to them. May not do any good, but it might. The problems you might have are young officials or those who are "looking" for stuff like this. I will probably mention it to white hat and umpire and if they are a good crew heads they willl address it in pre-game.

Just saying

 

[fencewire]

In UiL the ejection is just for the remainder of the game, there is no carry over and thus no appeals process. Unlike the nCAA, players are not required to leave the playing enclosure, too much liability on that.

I would strongly urge you to share your films with the officiating chapter that covers your game (especially if they utilize hudl, many do)regardless if you have a controversial call or not.

We use those videos just like coaches and players, teaching and training. Not only what may have been done incorrectly but also what was done right.

If you only submit video when something doesn't go right or only share certain clips it is hard to get much of a read on the officials or the game in general.

 

[fencewire]

I would open the pregame meeting by eliciting a discussion about the 2 big rules changes for this year, blocking below the waist and targeting, and tell them that you want to be clear on those changes and ask them to explain. Obviously, this would be in the pregame conference and not during the game..

If you haven't seen this already, take the time to watch, I'll try to find more that discusses this rule.

http://youtu.be/ANo1HXVHF4Y

 

[fencewire]

As promised, here is a video from last year that is still applicable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL_VQasieks

And here is a two part series from this year that is a pretty deep dive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE65gSMJQsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baFO0bQTTRw

Post up any additional questions...

Good luck to all this week and have a great season!

 

[Coach Fouts]

This rule is going to get some good hits from kids ejected from a game. You wait and see. I am not trying to stir the pot here and I think it is a valid argument but there is too much grey area and high school officials will see nearly every hit as a target. Nothing against our officials but since it is the new thing they are supposed to watch it will be over exaggerated. At both of our scrimmages the officials brought it up and there were already many different interpretations of it. I will probably be mad as all get out when it happens to us and I know it will even though we teach kids to hit right. I guess I can say I warned myself.

 

[fencewire]

I have been in 8 college and HS scrimmages thus far and we have one for sure foul that was called and would have been an ejection. The RB was tackled and on the ground when another defender hit him with the crown of his helmet. He was getting a foul for late hit anyway, but at the last second he lowered his head and 'speared' the guy on the ground. 2 officials conferred and both agreed with each other with what they saw on the play.

That's it in probably at least 900 plays, we had one other hit that was questionable, but we let it go as we were not absolutely sure.

I had one last year, again a downed ball carrier , out of probably 50 games from jr high to college. It isn't all that common in the first place. I think the biggest issue we will see in HS is on the peel back blindside blocks and players coming in late on ball carriers that are already down.

Hopefully this will be much ado about nothing...

 

[Shane]

This rule is going to get some good hits from kids ejected from a game. You wait and see. I am not trying to stir the pot here and I think it is a valid argument but there is too much grey area and high school officials will see nearly every hit as a target. Nothing against our officials but since it is the new thing they are supposed to watch it will be over exaggerated. At both of our scrimmages the officials brought it up and there were already many different interpretations of it. I will probably be mad as all get out when it happens to us and I know it will even though we teach kids to hit right. I guess I can say I warned myself.

You nailed it, Coach.

One of our kids got ejected near the beginning of the game last night on a clean block. It happened on an interception. Our guy picked the ball off and was running near the sideline toward the goal line. A player from the other team was a step behind him and reaching for him as another one of our players came in across the kid's chest and blocked him out of bounds, and our ball carrier scored untouched. The blocker actually turned his head away from the other player as he made the block, hitting him in the chest with his shoulder pads. The side judge was right there with them, and he signaled touchdown - no flag. Both the blocker and the blockee popped right up at the whistle. The white hat who was 30 yards away and way behind the play ran in and threw a flag and gave the ejection signal. Our player and our coaches (and the other refs, from the way it looked to me) were dumbfounded. There was nothing at all wrong with the block. It wasn't even a huge hit. It was effective, and it was very clean. I was about 20 yards away at the back of the endzone with my camera zoomed in with clear view of the play. I didn't get a photo of the actual block. I wish I would have. I got a couple shots right before the block.

It was a bad call. No defenseless player. No shot to the head. No leading with the crown of the helmet. Just a good block. Bad calls happen on both sides of the ball in every game. They'd happen even more often if I were a ref. I understand the reason behind the new targeting rule, but like Coach said, there is WAY too much grey area with this targeting rule, and the automatic ejection and suspension deal seems excessive. The penalty didn't affect the outcome of the game, but now our kid can't play next week either. We could sure use him against Water Valley.

Here's a question....is there any way to appeal the suspension? I haven't seen the game film, but maybe it would show the play clearly. I guess that is a TAPPS question. I don't know if there is an appeal process for penalties like this or not.

 

[1987]

I was setting the field up about two hours before the game when I was approached by the white hat as he was looking for our coach. He let me know right then and there that he hated calling our home games. Hated the dressing area, complaining that the UIL guaranteed certain accommodations. Hated the lighting and hated having to drive all the way from Putnum and something about not getting paid mileage for games played in Abilene and when there was closer games to him he could have called. You could tell he just did not want to be there.
While we were looking for our coach we actually begin talking about the targeting rule. He told me he missed a targeting call in the T-rock vs. S. Anna game the week before. He said after the play happened they just gave an unsportsman like penalty but did not eject the kid. He said later that week when he watched the film he clearly missed the call.
Now I'm not saying that all that I described above had anything to do with how the call in our game turned out, but how do you not at least think that it played a part. Or in an abundance of caution out of the missed call from last week he inappropriately applied the rule to this situation.
If you ask me, and I am aware no one did. This official had no bussiness calling our game, mainly for personal reasons. I wonder if he was happy he only had to call half a game.
Shane was right. Its going to really hurt us next week going to Water Valley.

 

[cowman52]

You are going to have to tell me why the kid doesn't play next week? Like most you failed to give the last picture that might have answered the question if the hit was illegal. The last picture shows that helmet to helmet surely could occur, the blocker could have ran in front of the player and all would have been fine, players love the big hits as does every one else, but this game has gotten violent, and the trying to hurt some one has to be done away with. Not my opinion, way higher up than me. If a few kids sit out a game, maybe they will figure out a way to hit someone and not get tossed.

 

[Shane]

If blockers are supposed to run in front of players instead of blocking them in order to avoid penalty, then there are going to be a lot more big hits on ball carriers by all those unblocked defensive tacklers. But maybe the tacklers are supposed to just run behind the ball carriers as they take turns running back and forth to the goal line?? LOL

I understand and appreciate the intent of the rule. The blocker that got ejected here suffered a concussion last year after taking several helmet to helmet shots in a game last year, in fact. I suspect that, along with the coaching on the targeting rule, is why he turned his head and made the block with his shoulder pads last night. My son plays on the team as well, and I am happy about anything that will make a head injury less likely for him.

I suppose there is no perfect way of accomplishing that. There is a lot of gray area that is up to individual refs' play-by-play interpretation with the targeting rule though. And the punishment for the penalty is severe, whether the call was made correctly or not. It stinks when it's not. But it doesn't stink as bad as a kid missing multiple games due to a head injury. I guess it's a trade-off worth making. But it still stinks when you lose a starter for two games due to a questionable call.

 

[cowman52]

From the two pictures posted, the runner was within a yard of the end zone, really no need for the big hit, might have been a foul, possible targeting.

UIL does not make the player sit out the next game. Good luck in water valley next week, you will see 5 officials for the varsity game. Be sure and post what you see there.

 

[Shane]

From the two pictures posted, the runner was within a yard of the end zone, really no need for the big hit, might have been a foul, possible targeting.

UIL does not make the player sit out the next game. Good luck in water valley next week, you will see 5 officials for the varsity game. Be sure and post what you see there.

In still pictures, that's an easy conclusion to come to. In real life, going full speed, when you see a tackler reaching for your ball carrier at the 5 yard line you go block him so your ball carrier can score.

I don't know why the ref ejected him if it wasn't part of the targeting penalty. Maybe it's a TAPPS rule, or maybe that ref wanted to hit us with whatever he could think of because he apparently hates working our games. I don't know. I do think that it is a TAPPS rule that if a player is ejected then he has to sit out the next game as well (and pay a $50 fine).

 

[cowman52]

Can't find anything in taps about sitting a game, not saying it is or isn't , but have a hard time on the fifty bucks. They usually follow UIL but don't know. There is a process for raising cane over the officials. Taso is really trying to get rid of some of the hanger on's, lazy, and worthless. Your coach has to scratch in writing, and since I'm guessing Abilene is your service chapter, they are down by about 1/2 in number of officials. Game film and other complaints can be sent in. Chapter sec in Abilene is a decent guy, coach needs to have a conversation with him.

Found one thing---section 159. Is tapps exceptions, it states tapps will play by NCAA rules.