Targeting Rule

[Shane]

I don't know if any appeal will be made or not. I'm sure our coach knows what his options are, and he'll decide what the best way to handle it is.

We had a kid get ejected and fined a couple of years ago, so I've seen the TAPPS rule before. It's in a written agreement every player signs before the season, I believe.

 

[freeagent]

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.

I'd scratch the guy. If he is so opinionated about how he feels he's treated by your joint, he shouldn't be assigned there. And that's what I'd tell the assigning secretary.

My guess is nobody else wants him, either.

By the way, what are the "UIL guaranteed certain accomodations." Is that like the A-list celebs who insist that their dressing room only be stocked with blue M&Ms and Perrier Water?

 

[cowman52]

You are to get a place to change clothes, secure, and private to some extent. That is about it, you can complain to UIL, but that is similar to having a decent discussion with an ex-wife.

 

[Shane]

You are to get a place to change clothes, secure, and private to some extent. That is about it, you can complain to UIL, but that is similar to having a decent discussion with an ex-wife.

They get that, but it's definitely nothing fancy. And I'm pretty sure nobody asks them what their favorite color of M&Ms are. Maybe we should start. LOL

 

[cowman52]

In Richland springs, the ladies of the community bring supper to the coaches office for after the game. Usually BBQ and all the fix in's and a large dish of banana pudding. Once I hid it from one of our more BBref's, he went home mad, never told him what happened.

 

[Shane]

Sounds like we need to step it up!

 

[fencewire]

Cowman is all over this one but several points.

1. Photos are great and they say a thousand words and all that jazz, but they also don't say a thousand other words. Be careful when looking at still photos to confirm football action. What that photo tells me is that the blocker and the blockee's heads are on the same latitude at the time of the photo, making them much more likely to 'contact'. The picture also shows that the runner is crossing the goal line and there is no reason to block at all.

2. What it doesn't show is the contact, the severity of that contact, etc. What if the blocker pulled up, barely touched the defender and their helmets brushed each other? What if he 'blew him up'? We don't know.. So all we have is what the narrator told us he saw. Does that mean it is the gospel? Not saying it isn't but different folks see and or told different things.

For example, recently there was a player (sr) that suffered a career ending injury. It was told to me that it was a result of an illegal block that wasn't flagged. That got my curiosity up. I wanted to see the play. I requested video, got video of the play. It was a lineman pass blocking a DE, pressure came from backside, to him, Qb tries to run, tackler has Qb's waist and loses grip and swings around as Qb escapes and the defender rolls up the back of the linemen's leg while the DE pushes him over the other defender. A somewhat freak injury and terrible result, but nothing illegal or intentional.

3. If, the official said what you say he said, the secretary of his chapter needs to be made aware. He would deny, of course, but at least it is out there and maybe he would learn a lesson to keep his yap shut, allegedly...

4. Unless tapps is different, and I have no clue, the player is eligible next week, the UIL adopted everything but the 'carryover' portion of the penalty. So if you are called for targeting on the first play or last play of the game, the disqualification only pertains to that contest.

 

[cowman52]

The chapter secretary knows the guy is a problem, believe me. Had a coach complain about a couple of ref's a while back, chapter threatened to drop the chapter rather than scratch the two. They finally gave in, but. Every chapter is down in members, some of the older ones have retired, wore out knees, just got tired of the complaining. The young ones have not seen enough games,worked with enough coaches, taken enough backside chewings to know how to handle it.

Every week we get. You cost us the game, you cost the kid his knees, it's always the refs fault. We have to send 1 good official with 2 that are not so good just to cover the game. We ask for film, it never comes,
We would love to use it to train, to grab one by the nape o the neck and shake.
Too, full speed on Friday night, you still can miss things. But we can work on the attitude.
We are not in this for the money, new UIL pay scale actually cut us back, but we do have some that need to give it up.

 

[Shane]

The chapter secretary knows the guy is a problem, believe me. Had a coach complain about a couple of ref's a while back, chapter threatened to drop the chapter rather than scratch the two. They finally gave in, but. Every chapter is down in members, some of the older ones have retired, wore out knees, just got tired of the complaining. The young ones have not seen enough games,worked with enough coaches, taken enough backside chewings to know how to handle it.

Every week we get. You cost us the game, you cost the kid his knees, it's always the refs fault. We have to send 1 good official with 2 that are not so good just to cover the game. We ask for film, it never comes,
We would love to use it to train, to grab one by the nape o the neck and shake.
Too, full speed on Friday night, you still can miss things. But we can work on the attitude.
We are not in this for the money, new UIL pay scale actually cut us back, but we do have some that need to give it up.

Yes sir. I have a friend that reffed for years. He loved it, but he definitely sacrificed in order to ref games. He didn't make any money at it, that's for sure. But he wanted to contribute in a way that he enjoyed doing. That's why I'm always hesitant to complain about a call. 99.9% of y'all are out there doing the best job you know how to do, you handle all the "stuff" that comes with your job with class most of the time. None of you are perfect. A bad call or two happen in every game. There's no way around that. Lord knows there would be loads of complaints about calls if I were a referee.

My reason for posting this originally was to discuss the gray area of the new targeting penalty, not to draw attention to the particular ref involved in this call. Whatever issues he may or may not have with reffing in Abilene or whatever is a separate deal, and I'm uncomfortable talking about that on a public website. I'm happy to leave that up to our coaches to handle through the appropriate channels.

I wish I had stayed on my shutter button for another click or two to capture the actual contact. I understand that the game film shows what I saw - shoulder to shoulder contact and not helmet to helmet. In the A&M vs. Alabama game yesterday, they were able to use instant replay to nullify a targeting call that was made in error. We don't have the benefit of instant replay in high school ball, so bad calls are gonna stand. But since TAPPS has the rule that requires for the next game's suspension, maybe there can be a review of the call to see if the suspension should stand or not. That rule was put in place long before there was a targeting rule that carries an automatic ejection. It was put into place when a player had to do something truly bad in order to get ejected. The intent of the rule was to make the consequences of unsportsmanlike (and un-Christian) behavior severe enough to get the point across that we expect our kids to behave appropriately. I think it's a good rule, but not necessarily in the context of the new targeting penalty. Perhaps TAPPS should modify the suspension rule for targeting penalties such that each one of them would have to be reviewed after the fact to determine if the infraction warrants a suspension for the next game or not. If it was truly a hit on a defenseless player or a spearing hit, then apply the suspension. If it was a bad call, then no suspension. That wouldn't get a kid back into the game immediately after a blown call, but at least a bad call wouldn't have an affect on the next game as well.

 

[SimplyPut]

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.

TOOK all them?

 

[Shane]

TOOK all them?

Yes, while playing QB and getting blitzed over and over.

 

[SimplyPut]

Fair enough. I hope you can understand my reasoning for asking. In all the discussion and pictures the player in question is being discussed as a blocker. But your example from last year is a completely different situation. QB? That is tough. Best of luck and I hope the player gets to play next week.

 

[Shane]

Sure, I understand. Not a problem at all. We were on defense when the play in question here happened. #15 intercepted a pass. #10 then turned into a blocker for him.

 

[cowman52]

Go to website. Ref stripes video's out the wazoo, plenty discussion, lots of thought. No cost to view, use, register. Not much in any 6 man discussion, but lot of rules gone over.

 

[Shane]

After further review, the targeting suspension in question here has been overturned. He'll play this week.

 

[Shad Kline]

After further review, the targeting suspension in question here has been overturned. He'll play this week.

I am glad that they took the time to review a questionable call. It shows that they have the best interest of the game and the players that play it at the top of the priority list. A good example that many could learn from.