ECU targeting suspension overturned
SIAP. ECU Linebacker Jack Powers' (A+ linebacker name, I'll give him that) suspension for being assessed a targeting penalty in the second half of our game has been overturned.
Live, it looked like clear-cut targeting to me. On the new scoreboards' instant replay, it looked like clear-cut targeting to me. Whatever the on-field official saw in review apparently made it look like targeting. But to the NCAA one day later, it was not targeting. Maybe someone who has a highlight handy can throw it up here and tell me why I'm wrong and the NCAA is right.
It's also apparent that ECU's coach and fans are pretty salty about the officiating. Like, Penn State after a Michigan game salty. Not accustomed to seeing a speed bump complaining so much about how the cars are driving over it, but that appears to be the case here.
September 7th, 2023 at 8:38 AM ^
From what I saw on the slowmo replay, it looked like Powers' head hit JJ in the top of his shoulder FIRST and then glanced up into JJ's head.
September 7th, 2023 at 8:57 AM ^
The rule is forcible contact with the crown of the helmet to the head or neck area as well the hit is a launching hit, helmet down so it fits the definition and why the flag was thrown.
I agree with ejecting for the remainder of the game. I disagree with suspension for any part of the next game. My guess is the ncaa thought the hit wasn't that egregious for that so they overturned it. Imo it's a bad look, change the rule on the suspension for the next game or demonstrate clear evidence that it is not a penalty to overturn.
September 8th, 2023 at 10:14 AM ^
If you don't have the carryover penalty, then you do open the door to cheapshots at the end of games because the "suspension" will only last a few plays.
September 7th, 2023 at 11:24 AM ^
EDIT: nevermind
Officiating was questionable, Michigan was favored a few times, the targeting was probably targeting (but not egregious, imo), and ECU is crying a little too hard.
The first TD probably should have been overturned, but I understand why the replay official could not tell...it was close enough and without a very clear line there was no way it would be overturned. But the ref should have flagged it live. Because as soon as it happened my thought was "welp, that's getting called back LOL"
September 7th, 2023 at 8:47 AM ^
NCAA officiating is horrid as is Big10 officials. Ecu fans going nuts like this cost them the game when the replay clearly shows that these were not egregious at all, not one of them.
The three they were most upset about.
1: TD, the claim is JJ was entirely across the los when he released the ball. However the rule states neutral zone, not los, which is a bit more ambiguous and not a thin line. Second, the yard/down marker was on the same side as the camera not the opposite side. So, we didn't get to see where, just the line on tv by the production. Which isn't what the officials follow. So even in the review it isn't clear that JJ wasn't out of the neutral zone or where the actual los is for the ruling as we did not have that view. Not to mention the behind angle we have access to and not the overhead or sideline view.
2: Targeting, there is no way around the video shows a launching hit, helmet down and helmet to helmet contact. It's clear targeting and we only got a brief replay on tv and didn't show it clearly which is why it was questioned. But upon the replay you clearly see it. Ncaa is fos to overturn it!
3: 12 men on the field, that's on the officials for not holding the snap until Michigan had fully subbed as ecu had subbed. That is the rule, no penalty and why the officials didn't throw the flag. Many officials let this go when it's a fair substitution by both teams. Ecu's coach is just crying at this point.
September 7th, 2023 at 8:57 AM ^
On the real though, we were the beneficiary of a couple of questionable calls and non-calls (most notably the TD pass on which JJ was pretty clearly past the line of scrimmage).
September 7th, 2023 at 11:14 AM ^
Yeah, OK. Except none of our questionable calls had anything to do with deliberately trying to inflict permanent brain damage.
The fucking foot-past-the-line screwjob means ECU maybe loses 23-3, and that's assuming we don't keep the foot on the throttle longer, which I find unlikely because a 3-score lead isn't insurmountable. So we play a little a longer with both fists out instead of one behind our backs. That's the extent of its influence.
Messing with another player's health because he's making a fool of you is on an entirely different level.
September 7th, 2023 at 8:59 AM ^
The first TD should not have been a TD. JJ was over the line. In fact, I thought it was even worse upon first viewing and never should have been a TD in the first place. It was closer on replay but still should have been called back.
The targeting was...targeting. The NCAA is dumb.
September 7th, 2023 at 8:59 AM ^
When the play happened I knew immediately that it was targeting, but I also thought it was as unintentional a hit as targeting can be. Yeah, he jumped as soon as JJ ducked, and the whole thing looks bad. But I didn't think it was the type of headhunting that was looking to get a player out of the game. I didn't think he should've been tossed at the time, and still don't.
HOWEVER.
It was very much a 15 yd penalty, and as much as it was called targeting it should not have been overthrown - because it was the very definition of what the rule states! JFC!!! Here I am advocating for 'levels' of this rule - the ECU LB should have got the penalty, and maybe tossed for the rest of that game but not the next game. But when the NCAA changes its mind and says it's not targeting altogether, it's obvious that there will never be any resolution to the egregious decision making the game is saddled with. We can never have 'levels' of this rule, which are clearly needed.
The NCAA - making nice things impossible for decades...
September 7th, 2023 at 9:16 AM ^
I'll probably get negged to oblivion for this, but I agreed with McAulay live on the broadcast and still agree with it after watching the replay several times.
The defender leads with his hands and pushes JJ. Because JJ is getting flipped from under by the low defender, his head is a moving target and the defender ends up getting him in the head because of it. But his first contact is a push to to JJs chest with his hands. His helmet hits the shoulder pad and then hits the head because JJ is falling wildly (because, of course, he had been tackled/was trying to avoid a tackle down low). It was still awful to watch live, and I'm so glad JJ is okay; I don't think it was targeting.
I also know that McAulay is getting dumped on because so many of the calls went against what he said they should be on the broadcast, but I think he was right on most of them. You don't get to be a Super Bowl official by being a bad official. The officials on the field for a Michigan-ECU game are going to be a lower caliber than that for sure.
The fact that someone mentioned below that half of the calls ECU sent in were deemed to be incorrect calls vindicates him on much of that. On the illegal forward pass, literally everyone on my Twitter timeline was like "yeah, that's an illegal forward pass." I think the only reason it stood was that they just didn't have the angle they needed (or VAR) to definitively say "every last bit of his body was beyond the LOS." If the call on the field was the reverse, I think it still stands because trying to review that without a perfect angle is always going to be tough.
I'm not trying to white knight for Terry McAulay or for the ECU defender at all. I just feel like I often see the board chase away dissenting opinions to the point where anyone who disagrees just doesn't even bother posting for fear of being negged.
September 7th, 2023 at 9:29 AM ^
This is a split second before the hit:
Defenders hands are out, his head is as straight-up as it can be while he's leaning forward on the front of his feet to avoid the defender coming at his feet. He has not left the ground, his head is at chest/shoulder pad level, and he is ready to push JJ's chest with his hands.
A split second later, JJ is helmet-to-helmet with him as gravity does its thing. The defender's face mask hits the shoulder pad first and then caroms into the helmet.
September 7th, 2023 at 10:17 AM ^
Thank you for breaking it out and explaining exactly why it is indeed targeting, seems definetly unintentional but still targeting none the less. We've all seen it called for far less, and in even more unintentional situations.
The intent is only part of what they are trying to eliminate. They also want to eliminate the possibility of head injuries by eliminating hiw the defender goes in for a tackle knowing that chaos can happen.
September 7th, 2023 at 11:03 AM ^
I could buy that if in the next few frames Power isn't following through with the crown of his helmet. He absolutely drives through JJ's head with his helmet
September 7th, 2023 at 11:37 AM ^
My thought was similar. Also: this is about the worst possible angle to determine targeting on this play.
September 7th, 2023 at 10:37 AM ^
I disagree. Here's the replay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXTqVCe2V4&t=815s
Here's the 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 their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the 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) T
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)
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 their 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). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield. • 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 themselves 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 themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. FR-94 RULE 9 / Conduct of Players and Others • 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 themselves up and is sliding feetfirst."
Under Article 3, to me it looks like the defender makes forcible contact "a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet." To my eyes, the defender also lowers his helmet just before contact.
But the more applicable language is in Article 4 because JJ, by definition, was a defenseless player. A "defenseless player" includes, "A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass." JJ had just thrown a pass, so he was defenseless under the wording of the rule. That means that any forcible contact with the "with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder" is consistent with targeting. Contact with the crown of the helmet is not required. Also note, there is no exception for initial contact by the helmet (which, to be frank, I don't see).
But there still must an indicator of targeting. Here I think you're off base. You posted a still of the defender with his feet on the ground, but review of the video shows he left his feet right after the moment depicted in the still. The defender leapt upwards and forward and made forcible contact to JJ's head and neck area with his helmet.
Finally, if there's doubt, the rule states: When in question, it is a foul.
Applying the facts to the law, as they say, this was correctly ruled targeting and the NCAA erred in reversing the call on the field.
September 7th, 2023 at 11:45 AM ^
I appreciate you posting the rules for discussion here and reasonably discussing what they have to say. +1 internet (and MGo) points to you.
- I agree with you that in this scenario JJ is a defenseless player according to that language. That requirement is certainly satisfied.
- This rule defines targeting as occurring when "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." I think an argument can be made that this was a rough football play but not one that goes beyond making a legal tackle.
- By the most black-and-white definition of "leaving the feet," Powers did so.
- I think the "to attack an opponent by upward and forward thrust of the body" part of the rule is debatable in this play.
- He left his feet by a few inches but does not even leave the ground until after he has already made contact with JJ.
- I think one can reasonably argue it was purely to avoid the guy about to slide under him. If you watch his body follow-through as he spins around to his left, he is very clearly trying to avoid the player coming under him with his movement.
- The rule states "A player leaving their feet to attack ... to make forcible contact in the head or neck area." While it may not be intentional, I think the rule here is ambiguous enough to allow for "intent" to come into play. The reason Powers left his feet can very well be attributed to the player coming at his feet. I don't think it was so that he could intentionally go after the head/neck area. He was aiming at JJ's chest/shoulders with his hands.
- I still disagree that Powers led with the crown of the helmet. To me, it looks like he led with his face mask which was caught by JJ's body and pulled down which makes it look like he led with it. You can see his helmet snap right back up -- and even rebound upward from being pulled down -- immediately afterward.
At the end of the day, I definitely agree JJ met the criteria to be a defenseless player here. While I still find ambiguity in the definitions of targeting itself, I can see the arguments to be made for it. That said, the "When in question, it is a foul" part of the rule is enough for this to be targeting penalty to be called on the field and confirmed in a quick review.
I don't think I have any problem with the suspension being overturned after it was reviewed. While the officials on the field and in the booth had limited time to be able to make the determination, the officiating office had much more time to break it down and compare to the letter of the law. I don't disagree with their decision, but I can understand why others would. I'd like to think that reasonable minds can disagree on this which was my initial reason for posting.
Appreciate the measured, reasoned discourse!
September 7th, 2023 at 9:21 AM ^
It was a textbook example of the rule, so why even have it?
September 7th, 2023 at 9:27 AM ^
I thought I was going crazy watching the commentators/ peacock ref talk about how there was no direct head-to-head contact, and now the ncaa is also reversing the call.
But every time I watch the video, I see his helmet clearly hit JJ's right in the side of JJ's face.
I do not get it.
September 7th, 2023 at 9:38 AM ^
So can we review Shawn Crable's 4th down hit on Troy Smith in 2006?
September 7th, 2023 at 10:06 AM ^
The targeting reversal is the correct call by the ncaa, but it’s also completely understandable to see it differently if all you’ve seen was the live action replay which very much looks like targeting. At a minimum, though, it was roughing the passer which carries the same on field 15yd penalty.
As for the first TD and whether it was an illegal forward pass or not, that was one of those plays where whatever was called on the field was going to stand because there just wasn’t the video evidence required to overturn it. Watching it live I thought it probably was a penalty, but after watching it in slow mo I could see how a ref could have believed it was legal and let it go.
September 7th, 2023 at 10:57 AM ^
It was funny seeing X's reaction to the first TD. It seemed like every Michigan commentator agreed that it was a penalty.
I personally thought there was a chance that the very back of his heel was back far enough, but I also know that I was looking for evidence to uphold the TD rather than trying to balance anything objectively.
September 7th, 2023 at 10:55 AM ^
Unpopular opinion, but I'm OK with this ruling. If I remember it correctly, the defender actually made contact with JJ's shoulder before the head or neck, and after that initial contact, the defender hit JJ's helmet mostly with his facemask.
I thought the call could've gone either way on replay, and I hate the suspension penalty without clear intent. I didn't see clear intent from the LB. What I saw was a guy going for a tackle without proper technique.
I know intent isn't part of the definition and it may have been targeting by the strict definition, but punishing a player in the next game because his technique was poor seems excessive.
This is probably more of a criticism of the rule as written than of this specific example, but I stand by my thoughts.
September 7th, 2023 at 11:19 AM ^
But the 0 for 5 announcers said the QB jumped up. When you hear "well he did jump up" as someone lays a head to head blow to your QB youve got to wonder what is the motivation to say that. Ive never heard anyone lay the blame at the feet of the guy getting rocked before. A real Jesse the Body Ventura type hot take.
September 7th, 2023 at 11:40 AM ^
Nice way for NCAA to highlight what it really is. Equal parts incompetence and corruption. Mix well and enjoy!
September 7th, 2023 at 11:47 AM ^
so this is how the season is going to go with the ncaa, petty and stupid
September 7th, 2023 at 12:09 PM ^
Did the NCAA also award the linebacker a cheeseburger?
September 7th, 2023 at 12:29 PM ^
I agree with him about McCarthy being over the line but the 12 man on the field thing was seemingly a judgment call by the refs about letting a guy slowly get off the field after the offense made a transition (a practice ECU was doing just as much). Also, that was absolutely the definition of targeting and the fact that some review board decided it wasn't after the fact maybe just means they were wrong in not upholding it, not that the initial call wasn't the case. As for the PI, on replay it may have been tipped but it was also such an egregious pull by the defender that unless it's obviously touched you aren't getting that call.
Anyway, coaches are paid to advocate for their players and so I don't blame him for doing so. I'm sure UM could go back and find a number of missed holding calls, PIs, etc. by ECU players and request review on those as well. It's life.
September 7th, 2023 at 1:18 PM ^
After watching the video 3 or more times now, including the game itself, it is apparent the NCAA and refs have no idea what targeting is. Pretty obvious to me this player deserved to be ejected and suspended.
With all we know about head trauma and CTE I cannot believe this is even a discussion. We should be erroring on the side of caution in every case and there was no reason whatsoever for the player to tackle in that manner and leave his feet.
Good grief.
September 7th, 2023 at 2:42 PM ^
Upon further review, it was the TCU version of targeting.
September 7th, 2023 at 3:54 PM ^
That was one of the few calls the refs got right. They were bad (and for once *most* of the bad calls went in our favor). Although I have read that JJ's 'beyond the line of scrimmage' TD was actually the correct call because it's about when the throwing motion begins (not sure if true).
But either way, LOL NCAA. What a GD joke.
September 8th, 2023 at 2:07 AM ^
I believe (no thanks to the stupid announcers) it is about where the football is when the throwing motion begins. So if the football was behind the line of scrimmage it's fine.
September 7th, 2023 at 6:08 PM ^
Overall, the calls did go in our favor but quite frankly fuck ECU! I found them to be a dirty team with plenty of questionable hits, I think 1 only 1 of them got flagged. I get that this is their superbowl or whatever but there is a difference between going hard and being dirtbags, I find them to be the latter.
September 8th, 2023 at 2:06 AM ^
I have no comment on the days later overturning other than fuck the NCAA. And yes it absolutely was textbook targeting as the rule is written.
BUT as to WHY this happens? Because it's a bullshit rule that doesn't require intent and therefore refs apply it incredibly unevenly, some of them no doubt wanting to avoid kicking players out of both current and future games. Unintentional head to head needs to become a yardage penalty. I get what they are aiming for and it's a worthy goal but when you kick players out of games in a 12 game sport that did not even do something on purpose, well, it serves no purpose other than to piss everyone off and get enforced incredibly irregularly. By all means kick kids out of game for any intentional, potentially harmful plays. But this rule has been crap since the day it was implemented and football is a violent sport. Someone aiming for someone's head on purpose probably needs kicked off the fucking team.
I hope the NCAA is ready for what they unleashed because every Saturday there are controversial targeting calls, usually because it is clear, as it was this time IMO, that the head to head may be forcible but it is not intentional. They're gonna get inundated with calls and appeals. Maybe they will finally consider fixing the stupid rule.
September 8th, 2023 at 8:09 AM ^
Looked like targeting to me but we don't play them this week so I am not going to dwell on it.
September 8th, 2023 at 1:28 PM ^
The guy launched upwards and delivered a helmet to helmet hit. How in the hell is it not targeting? I’m a little concerned that officials will steal a game from us if it’s close enough to allow them to do so. I guess we just need to blow everyone out.