Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Targeting and Ejection

GoonieBuff said:
What some of us might be forgetting (in what I still think wasn't a good call - at least not the ejection part) is that even though that was a penalty on us and Laguda was ejected, ZERO points were scored on the drive due to the defense stiffening up and Moeller picking off the 3rd down pass in the end zone. So even though that call sucked for us, Laguda finishing off the play helped keep any more points from going on the board - for the rest of the game. Looking back, I'd take that call and result every time if it led to our defense responding like they did.
Click to expand...

Laguda has a case for one of the game balls. That hit kept points off the board at a point in the game when both teams were exchanging scores.

Laguda's hit in combination with Moeller's pick is the point where UMASS turtled. It was all Buffs from then on.

I sure hope the coaches spend some time in the film room showing how Laguda welcomed the Minutemen to Boulder. Leavitt should explain to everyone on the team that Laguda dined on a prime cut of steak last night and gets first dibs on the Xbox with Atkins and Powell all week long.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skidmark said:
Laguda has a case for one of the game balls. That hit kept points off the board at a point in the game when both teams were exchanging scores.

Laguda's hit in combination with Moeller's pick is the point where UMASS turtled. It was all Buffs from then on.
Click to expand...

agree. And fine use of the word "turtled".

tumblr_m0g1e3WN1L1qcr2v7.gif
 
Jeric said:
According to the refs that hang around reddit, Laguda hit the guy's facemask during the hit causing the players head to turn which is a targeting penalty. I didn't buy it until I saw the angle posted above, definitely looks like the Laguda's helmet hits his facemask.. Quite unfortunate.
Click to expand...
Yeah...after Laguda hit him in the chest and his head snapped forward
 
I was at the game too, & IMO the U mass receiver did not look helpless and I also believe that he could see Laguda was going to plant him. Nor do I believe he was targeted. Clean hit with his shoulder in my mind. Bad call by the refs
 
TARGETING AND CROWN-OF-HELMET GUIDELINES FOR COACHES, PLAYERS AND OFFICIALS


INTRODUCTION

With the 2013 rule change that makes ejection from the game a part of the penalty for targeting fouls coaches, players and officials need to have a clear understanding of Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. It is very important to understand that thesefouls have not changed from previous years, and officials should officiate these plays as in the past. The characterization of defenseless players has been expanded (see below), but otherwise these rules for the fouls remain as they have been. It is the penalty that has changed.

These guidelines are intended to assist everyone involved in the game to understand these rules, which are so important in protecting the safety of the student-athlete.



RULES

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.


KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.

Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.

Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.

Examples (Rule 2-27-14):

  • 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.

KEY INDICATORS

Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:

  • Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
  • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
  • Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
  • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet


These indicate less risk of a foul:

  • Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders
  • Wrap-up tackle
  • Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact
  • Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play


HINTS FOR PLAYERS

  • Don’t lead with your head
  • Lower your target--don’t go for the head or neck area with anything
  • Tackle: Heads-up and wrap-up
Click to expand...
http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342
I believe this is a situation where the hit was just within the letter of the law, but clearly outside of the spirit of it. If I were MM, I congratulate him on a great play, and tell him not to worry about it.
 
I think MM responded well in the press conference to the questions regarding the hit. Lots of great coach speak, but what I took from it was he was pumped about the hit too as well as dissatisfied with the penelty/ejection.

Since I missed the game and only say the highlights, what is there required suspension will there be a committee review to set a suspension length, or is the ejection it?
 
We are Section 120 so the sliver before the beautiful stadium upgrades and right on the goal line. Watched it live and replays. It appears he leads with shoulder and makes contact with the chest. He did everything to avoid any helmet contact.
Our section gave him a standing ovation as he went off the field.
It was not targeting. That call was horse crap but glad to see the former walk-on make a nice INT and the game was over after that play. I'm the past UMass would have scored. If Laguda doesn't make that hit, UMASS does score. Maybe we needed that Hawaii wake up call and that hit will be the turning point.
 
Gramburglar said:
I think MM responded well in the press conference to the questions regarding the hit. Lots of great coach speak, but what I took from it was he was pumped about the hit too as well as dissatisfied with the penelty/ejection.

Since I missed the game and only say the highlights, what is there required suspension will there be a committee review to set a suspension length, or is the ejection it?
Click to expand...

What?

Anyway, targeting penalties are already set for the punishments. If it happens in the first half, you're out for the rest of the game. If it happens in the second half, you also miss the first half of the next game.
 
Orr said:
I was at the game, and saw it live, and then 20 times on the jumbo.

Is there an element of targeting that I don't fully understand (likely)? Was that a reasonable personal foul and ejection?

I get that the receiver was vulnerable. But there was no leading with the helmet, and the receiver wasn't hit in the head region either.

What gives? Give me fair critical analysis that convinces me that was a good call.
Click to expand...
It was a clean hit, but it was close and the refs erred on the side of caution. I'm not too upset about it. It stopped a TD and the next play was Moeller's INT.
 
I was at the game and from what I saw both live and the replays on the scoreboard it looked like a completely bad call. Seeing it on the broadcast and on the GIF with a different angle it is a penalty by the letter of the rule but I think the ejection is completely incorrect.

If you watch the force of the blow was delivered by the shoulder pad directly to the football which was being held at about the top of the numbers on the offensive players chest. This is what caused the ball to come out.

It is a penalty because as the blow followed through Laguda's helmet does make contact with the facemask. For it to be a PF that is all it takes even though the facemask actually snapped forward due to the impact of the blow. Laguda was not aiming for the head and didn't launch into the head or head area, his full blow was directed to the ball and players chest area, a perfectly clean play, that accidentally turned into helmet to helmet contact (but not a blow) which does meet the criteria for a PF but not ejection.

And as mentioned huge effort by Moeller to make the INT which left UMass (UMess, they sucked) without points on the drive and killed the momentum they were using to stay in the game at that point. Even the chip shot FG would have kept their motivation up and believing they were in the game.
 
MtnBuff said:
I was at the game and from what I saw both live and the replays on the scoreboard it looked like a completely bad call. Seeing it on the broadcast and on the GIF with a different angle it is a penalty by the letter of the rule but I think the ejection is completely incorrect.

If you watch the force of the blow was delivered by the shoulder pad directly to the football which was being held at about the top of the numbers on the offensive players chest. This is what caused the ball to come out.

It is a penalty because as the blow followed through Laguda's helmet does make contact with the facemask. For it to be a PF that is all it takes even though the facemask actually snapped forward due to the impact of the blow. Laguda was not aiming for the head and didn't launch into the head or head area, his full blow was directed to the ball and players chest area, a perfectly clean play, that accidentally turned into helmet to helmet contact (but not a blow) which does meet the criteria for a PF but not ejection.

And as mentioned huge effort by Moeller to make the INT which left UMass (UMess, they sucked) without points on the drive and killed the momentum they were using to stay in the game at that point. Even the chip shot FG would have kept their motivation up and believing they were in the game.
Click to expand...
Ugh, for like the 3rd time, if the call is targeting then ejection is automatic.
 
SINKRATZ said:
I was actually surprised they could review a penalty like that. I suppose they could downgrade it from targeting to unnecessary roughness .
Click to expand...
I thought they reviewed every targeting penalty regardless? Thus the reason for the review and the questions you are seeing from everyone. I am not 100% sure on the rule though.
 
patebuff said:
I thought they reviewed every targeting penalty regardless? Thus the reason for the review and the questions you are seeing from everyone. I am not 100% sure on the rule though.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know, you could be right that they review every time. At first I thought they wanted to check if the receiver had actually caught the ball.
 
I think the penalty cannot be overturned, but the ejection can be. I'll let someone google that for me.
 
'Tini said:
Yeah...after Laguda hit him in the chest and his head snapped forward
Click to expand...

Nope it was definitely on the initial hit, Laguda's helmet catches his facemask. The helmet turned with his helmet's contact to his facemask, not just off the hit. Not sure how you can claim to know more than multiple D1 referees plus the one on the field in the game plus the replay booth, and yes the ones on reddit addressed the possibility that it was due to the head snapping forward but that was clearly not the case. If you slow it down, it's quite obvious.
 
Last edited:
SINKRATZ said:
Ugh, for like the 3rd time, if the call is targeting then ejection is automatic.
Click to expand...

No, they changed the rule. The call can be reviewed for intent and if it meets the criteria for targeting. If upon review they determine that it does not meet the criteria for ejection it becomes a simple unsportsmanlike personal foul without the ejection or can as of last season be completely overturned.


http://espn.go.com/college-football...no-longer-penalized-overturned-targeting-call
 
Jeric said:
Nope it was definitely on the initial hit, Laguda's helmet catches his facemask. The helmet turned with his helmet's contact to his facemask, not just off the hit. Not sure how you can claim to know more than multiple D1 referees plus the one on the field in the game plus the replay booth.
Click to expand...
Trust me, everyone on allbuffs are experts on officiating football. Ask Tini
 
The argument is moot. It happened, he was ejected. The misfortune served as a galvanizing point in the game and the D pitched a shutout from then on.

The call was borderline, and the refs are going to call alot of those with protection of the head being paramount in the ncaa's eyes.

Either way I take that hit and that play from Laguda every game. Beautiful hit, and prevented a score. He was out the 2nd half of UMASS and will be eligible for CSU. No harm. No foul. Good to go.
 
MtnBuff said:
No, they changed the rule. The call can be reviewed for intent and if it meets the criteria for targeting. If upon review they determine that it does not meet the criteria for ejection it becomes a simple unsportsmanlike personal foul without the ejection or can as of last season be completely overturned.


http://espn.go.com/college-football...no-longer-penalized-overturned-targeting-call
Click to expand...
Read the link you sent, I'm pretty sure it supports what I said. They can overturn the targeting call upon review in which case the player wouldn't be ejected, but if the targeting call stands after review ejection is automatic. That's what happened to Laguda yesterday.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
The argument is moot. It happened, he was ejected. The misfortune served as a galvanizing point in the game and the D pitched a shutout from then on.

The call was borderline, and the refs are going to call alot of those with protection of the head being paramount in the ncaa's eyes.

Either way I take that hit and that play from Laguda every game. Beautiful hit, and prevented a score. He was out the 2nd half of UMASS and will be eligible for CSU. No harm. No foul. Good to go.
Click to expand...

This
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
The argument is moot. It happened, he was ejected. The misfortune served as a galvanizing point in the game and the D pitched a shutout from then on.

The call was borderline, and the refs are going to call alot of those with protection of the head being paramount in the ncaa's eyes.

Either way I take that hit and that play from Laguda every game. Beautiful hit, and prevented a score. He was out the 2nd half of UMASS and will be eligible for CSU. No harm. No foul. Good to go.
Click to expand...

All true.

How many times in recent years have we seen the Buffs fall apart when something like this happened, this time they sucked it up and made the play, changed the rest of the game.
 
SINKRATZ said:
Read the link you sent, I'm pretty sure it supports what I said. They can overturn the targeting call upon review in which case the player wouldn't be ejected, but if the targeting call stands after review ejection is automatic. That's what happened to Laguda yesterday.
Click to expand...

and if another personal foul does not occur on the play, the targeting penalty is not to be enforced.

Officials have the option of going with the targeting which is a 15 yard penalty and an ejection, going with the 15 yard and no ejection, or to determine that no foul occurred and no penalty is assessed. I saw the second of these options more than once last season. Can't recall the penalty being completely overturned last year but it is an option.
 
MtnBuff said:
and if another personal foul does not occur on the play, the targeting penalty is not to be enforced.

Officials have the option of going with the targeting which is a 15 yard penalty and an ejection, going with the 15 yard and no ejection, or to determine that no foul occurred and no penalty is assessed. I saw the second of these options more than once last season. Can't recall the penalty being completely overturned last year but it is an option.
Click to expand...
Right, and upon review they determined it was targeting which calls for automatic ejection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top