November 3rd, 2018 at 7:50 PM ^
T'was
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:50 PM ^
No helmet to helmet. It was the correct call. Timed perfectly. Hate it for DPJ, but they got it right on replay.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:54 PM ^
Agreed. The problem is that it is never called consistently, even after replay.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:54 PM ^
Correct.
As much as I may not like Penn State, I want the calls to be done correctly for BOTH sides of a game.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:57 PM ^
I thought replay was inconclusive. Some angles looked like helmet to helmet, others did not. So is this like a jury trial with reasonable doubt? Refs needed unanimous angle conclusion?
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:02 PM ^
There was one replay that I thought was pretty conclusive there was no contact
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:58 PM ^
But helmet-to-helmet is NOT the same thing nor a necessary component of "Targeting" in the NCAA. And the clear LAUNCH should have qualified it as Targeting:
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football
FTA:
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 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
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:01 PM ^
EXACTLY. He launched at a defenseless player to attack the head or neck area. That's targeting.
November 3rd, 2018 at 11:15 PM ^
If you look at the textbook, it describes exactly this play.
Launching into the head and neck area of a defenseless player.
That's literally a textbook targeting foul.
November 4th, 2018 at 3:38 AM ^
The thing that surprised me the most was that the unnecessary roughness penalty was also waived off.
I've seen targeting overruled, but the UR penalty still enforced, several times.
so, even if there was no helmet to helmet contact, he still launched at a "defenseless receiver.
November 4th, 2018 at 10:31 AM ^
It’s all in the wording of the official. There’s a difference between “Personal foul, targeting” and “Personal foul WITH targeting.” There was no WITH in the call. So it’s overturned and no penalty at all.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:03 PM ^
Disagree because in the Launch section of your copy/paste it clearly says the head/neck area. It was inconclusive that DPJ was actually hit in the head/neck area.
It was a violent hit, and snapped his head back, which (I'm not a doctor) seems like it would risk a concussion...but according to the letter of the law it was not targeting due to the launch alone.
November 3rd, 2018 at 9:09 PM ^
He didn't add this part that preceded the quote:
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.
"Inconclusive" means targeting. Can't see how they overturned the call but I'm sure they have a reason.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:33 PM ^
He hit him in the body. Also, nice dog. That's mostly why I'm replying.
November 3rd, 2018 at 11:48 PM ^
Yep, no helmet to helmet contact required for something to be targeting
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:02 PM ^
Shoulder hit first, but there was definitely helmet contact. There have been MUCH less clear instances called.
The fact that they overturned it was bullshit.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:30 PM ^
The sound was helmet to helmet, not shoulderpad to helmet.
November 3rd, 2018 at 9:40 PM ^
Helmet to helmet contact doesn’t matter. Read the actual rule. It was technically targeting how the rule is written. I hate how the rule is written and think it should be re-written, but that was by the book targeting how it’s written now.
“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 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”
November 3rd, 2018 at 10:53 PM ^
Except he hit dpjs chest and not his head or neck so it wasn’t targeting. Since dpj was in the air jumping caused him to hit the chest. It wasn’t targeting and I thought it was pretty clearly not targeting
November 4th, 2018 at 11:51 AM ^
That was not his chest.
November 3rd, 2018 at 10:20 PM ^
I was at the game and the play occurred right in front of me. I heard a sound that was exactly like 2 helmets smacking each other. Everyone around me started waving good-bye to the player (No. 21). It certainly looked and sounded like targeting. If it was not targeting, curious what that sound was.
November 3rd, 2018 at 10:38 PM ^
From the replay the sound came from their shoulder pads. Thats where 1st contact was from. The player did launch but there was no forcible contact to the head conclusively! IMO the refs did get it right.
November 3rd, 2018 at 11:29 PM ^
The replay I saw sure looked like helmet-to-helmet contact, but only after the shoulder-to-chest contact. The helmet-to-helmet contact was not intended and therefor not targeting. Seeing it live, it looked like targeting, but replay showed it was not. That's precisely how the rule should work.
November 4th, 2018 at 8:41 AM ^
There was clearly helmet to helmet. Though it wasn’t the initial point of contact.
However, it is plays specifically like this that targeting aims to erase from the game. He launched himself at a defenseless receiver and hit him high. That is EXACTLY what the rule is there to prevent (or at least discourage).
Metellus didn’t make head to head contact against Notre Dame. He was tossed. Hudson made a hit between the tackles and turned to avoid head to head contact, he was tossed from the booth. And you’re going to sit here and tell me a player launching high at a defenseless receiver isn’t targeting?
Thats bullshit. The rule is bullshit. And it needs to go. Now.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:50 PM ^
Contact to head/neck wasn't forceful. Dangerous hit, but doesn't fit the definition of targeting.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:59 PM ^
How can it be dangerous and not forceful at the same time? DPJ got laid the F out.
Maybe I have the rule wrong but, 1. The defender launched into the head/neck area. Isn't launching one of the illegal criteria? 2. The WR was defenseless which makes it illegal. 3. It WAS forcible contact to the head/neck area which again by rule should make this targeting.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:03 PM ^
I think the officials ruled that the contact was to the shoulder/chest, not the head/neck area, and therefore targeting does not apply. That said, that is the kind of play that shows why the rule needs to be amended, because that clearly was an intentional laying out of a defenseless player, but that doesn't get called, while accidental and unavoidable head contact does. One would think that "targeting" implies clear intent, but that's not how the rule is written.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:12 PM ^
Because it was forceful to his chest.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:50 PM ^
I don’t believe they gave a full explanation. At the very least shouldn’t it have been a personal foul for launching?
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:51 PM ^
Maybe this. But it definitely wasn't targeting
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:12 PM ^
Yeah that's what I was thinking. Isn't there still an unnecessary roughness penalty or something?
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:37 PM ^
“Launching” is not a pentalty. Can we please stop saying this. It’s annoying.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:51 PM ^
I don't know, but it was at the very least a personal foul. Maybe not the ejection for targeting, but should have been roughing a defenseless receiver.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:55 PM ^
So he's just supposed to let DPJ catch it?! Not even try to do anything?Because that's what it seems anymore when these hits happen..."welp I could try to make a hit and tackle wait nope I'm gonna be too dangerous I'll just let him catch it my coach will understand"
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:02 PM ^
He launched high on DPJ. He could have hit him lower and accomplished the same objective of not "welp"ing. Should have been a personal foul at tge very least.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:02 PM ^
Can't launch at a defenseless player to the head/neck area. I really want to hear the rationale for reversing the call on the field.
November 4th, 2018 at 6:15 AM ^
The explanation is that you CAN launch at a defenseless player as long as the forceful contact isn't to the head/neck area.
DPJ was defenseless.
The defender launched
...but the ruling was that the forceful contact was shoulder to chest, and that the head contact was secondary, incidental (and thus not "forceful") contact.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:08 PM ^
This is the correct reaction. The way the shitty rule is written the most legal thing the defender could have done was attack the ball and ignore the WR.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:51 PM ^
Targeting Is the same as what is a catch in the NFL....
No one knows.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:53 PM ^
Because it was a basic football play. Not malicious, not head to head,.not leading with his own head/helmet...etc.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:55 PM ^
Because there was no actual helmet to helmet contact. It was all shoulder. That was a good reversal and no call.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:01 PM ^
Shirley, you can't be serious. You think the helmets didn't touch? Is that your electron repulsion theory? Then the shoulders didn't touch either.
I've seen players ejected for far less. I thought in today's football that he would be gone for sure.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:03 PM ^
Need to read the actual rule.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:56 PM ^
We're talking about the hit on DPJ, right?
On replay, and I had to watch it a few times to sell it to myself, it actually did look like it was shoulder-to-shoulder initially. I rescind any tweet that might have come out in not-quite-sober irritation.
November 3rd, 2018 at 7:58 PM ^
It was super close, I don’t mind them not calling it as long as they call it consistently. LSU’s best LB is out for the first half versus Bama on a total BS targeting call.
On a side note, if the whole football thing doesn’t work out for DPJ, he could take up boxing. Dude has a chin
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:08 PM ^
Thankfully he wasn't injured
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:11 PM ^
Targeting is too subjective and has too many serious consequences. A bit ridiculous.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:12 PM ^
I feel like we hear a different definition of targeting every week. It seems like Hudson's first targeting call against SMU involved the side of the helmet when before that I had only heard about the crown and launching and so on. Very subjective call, I guess. At least it wasn't on the level of the Washington State / USC debacle.
November 3rd, 2018 at 8:19 PM ^
That play drew three flags and no penalty was called. What's up with that. At the very least, it was unnecessary roughness regardless of whether it was targeting or not. They had the option of enforcing a personal foul call, and you are telling me all three officials who threw flags only did so because they thought the call was targeting alone? C'mon. I mean we had to go to replay to determine the angle of the hit, not whether the play itself warranted a flag. And nothing was called. I was totally mystified.