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 calls
- Thread starter sackman
- Start date
I know the coaches vote at some point on rule changes. I don't know the process on how it gets to that point, though.
The rule does not consider intent or even circumstances like a guy ducking into it or the guy doing the hitting sliding up to the head.
It very specifically says that if you have contact to the head outside of a running advancing through the LOS area it is going to be targeting.
Mulumba hit him in the chest and slid up into the facemask. As Superior states the QB was in a defenseless position. The Mulumba hit was also at least borderline late.
I don't like the rule either but as long as CTE is prominently in the news this is how they are going to call it. Players have to learn to avoid contact with QBs after the ball is released and need to learn to go lower on their hits making impact in the abdominal or lower torso area.
It very specifically says that if you have contact to the head outside of a running advancing through the LOS area it is going to be targeting.
Mulumba hit him in the chest and slid up into the facemask. As Superior states the QB was in a defenseless position. The Mulumba hit was also at least borderline late.
I don't like the rule either but as long as CTE is prominently in the news this is how they are going to call it. Players have to learn to avoid contact with QBs after the ball is released and need to learn to go lower on their hits making impact in the abdominal or lower torso area.
Third little paragraph is exactly why I said get your head to one side or the other and attack with the shoulder. It's ****ing hard going full speed though, it'll feel mechanical for most.
This post has caught me and I'm compelled to respond.
It's absolutely a deterrent! I played and I've paid. And I make that qualification, only because your qualification above in bold. My other qualification is that I fear CTE in my own brain, brought on by the fact that I was taught to mimic "the Assassin". I tackled primarily with the crown of my helmet. My crown into his sternum was the perfect pass breakup. The saving grace was that I wasn't very good at this level, and mostly played on special teams beyond HS, but that didn't save me from many known and other probable concussions in practices and scout team. I'm a strong proponent of protecting players' futures and I am leading the charge of CTE awareness if you will, among my circles, which is now parents and message boards.
With that, I am absolutely sure that Coaches teach and practice to avoid head-to-head contact as much as possible. Primarily because an ejection is in fact a very strong deterrent. What is it that you feel would be a stronger deterrent? What do you see wrong with this?
I notice that all of these ejections are reviewed, 100%. Review them for intent and penalize stronger for those aiming to injure. That would be my input. You can usually tell intent. But you are also trying to change behaviors. Life is fragile and this is our new reality.
Just my opinion, but both calls were correct by the letter of the rule, unfortunate though because neither seemed intentional. Laguda tried to lead with his shoulder, unfortunately the receiver's body position changed and resulted to contact to his head. Teaching moment to safeties has to be that you shouldn't aim to hit, but rather to breakdown and wrap-up. I can also see some change in the future that requires offensive players to maintain a heads up position for their own protection, or suffer an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, no more RB or WR lowering their heads and bodies to plow into the defender (I think this will come sooner rather than later). The Mulumba hit was really just incidental contact. You could see from the TV replay that he didn't lead or hit with his head. He kind of ran through the QB and actually used his hands to contact the chest, however the hit was so forceful, it kind of caused the QB's head to move forward. This combined with Mulumba's own momentum, caused his facemask to contact the QB's facemask. The only thing that could be taught differently there would be to either offset your body or to extend your arms sooner so that you maintain space between the QB's head and your head. Having him lower his head and shoulder I think would be unnecessary in that situation.
Outstanding post.
My career didn't last any longer than my knees did and as much as I loved playing the game I am thankful because my back is still okay, my shoulders are still okay, and despite what some may think my head is still okay.
I remember though the buzzing headaches that would last for hours after practice, remember the low dull headache that would last days on end, and remember how time would go by in a kind of fog. With all this I was still out there in pads hitting with full intensity and getting body parts, pads, and the ground bounced off my head. What would the result have been had I continued for another few years?
Lots of things have changed in football over time. Coaches and fans screamed about how football would come to an end when they legislated against chop blocks and limited low blocks in the open field. Also when they initiated the rules against hitting "defenseless" receivers downfield. Go back far enough and you will find arguments against the face mask penalty.
If the penalty is severe enough coaches and players will adapt. Those who adapt best will have the highest likelyhood of winning.
From what I am seeing it looks like the reality of football in the future is going to follow the Seahawks and Pete Carroll who brought in a coach to teach them rugby technique tackling instead of trying to blow people up. The result has not only been fewer injuries for their players but a more effective defense that give up fewer big plays and turns the ball over more often.
DexBuffsteen
Well-Known Member
I thought Laguda's was a personal foul but it didn't look like targeting, i.e. leading with the crown of the helmet.
Mulumba's was odd since he decked the QB, QB falls to ground, QB takes off helmet, QB rolls around in pain, Ref throws flag. I thought there was some acting involved.
Mulumba's was odd since he decked the QB, QB falls to ground, QB takes off helmet, QB rolls around in pain, Ref throws flag. I thought there was some acting involved.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
You should read the full targeting rule; they were both proper calls.
It strikes me that the point of "targeting" is, or should be, to protect a defenseless player (and take helmet contact out of the game as much as possible). The Laguda hit clearly fell into the scope of that proposed protection, no matter how it occurred. The WR was not able to see or avoid Laguda.
However, the Mulumba hit on the QB does not. I don't think the hit was late, just determined to be too high (with helmet to helmet contact). It appears that the QB saw Mulumba coming the whole way, and chose to - as they say - stand in and try to deliver the ball. I get - and agree - that helmet to helmet contact is a goal to be avoided, but why is the entire brunt of that policy placed on the defensive players? Doesn't the QB have some culpability to avoid contact he sees coming? This is a game of inches, and if - in this case - Mulumba had merely aimed for the QB's stomach, the QB may have been able to continue his motion and deliver the ball more on target. (He looked like he was trying to hit the QB in the shoulder to stop the throw.) But, that doesn't make the QB "helpless." He could have avoided the contact entirely by stopping his throwing motion, moving away, or falling down and giving himself up (ala P. Manning). Unfortunately, most people - and the unwritten rules - would view that as a soft play by the QB.
Not saying - at all - the rules shouldn't protect against helmet to helmet contact with a defenseless player, but perhaps the unwritten rules of the game need to change as well: i.e., changing player behavior. Players and commentators get all jacked up about physical play and the guts of "standing in there and delivering the ball," but there is no "right" to deliver the ball. I am not aware of any rule asserting absolute protection for "once in the throwing motion" (beyond the interpretation of fumbles versus interceptions). The QB retains the choice to continue the throwing motion throughout the throw, despite the awareness of the incoming defender.
If Mulumba had hit him late, that's a completely different story, and I agree that any helmet to helmet contact is to be penalized - except when it relates to a player running the ball, it seems; hence, the lack of application of the "helpless" player requirement of the rule.
No conclusion, just a few thoughts that occurred to me while being annoying we had a player ejected.
However, the Mulumba hit on the QB does not. I don't think the hit was late, just determined to be too high (with helmet to helmet contact). It appears that the QB saw Mulumba coming the whole way, and chose to - as they say - stand in and try to deliver the ball. I get - and agree - that helmet to helmet contact is a goal to be avoided, but why is the entire brunt of that policy placed on the defensive players? Doesn't the QB have some culpability to avoid contact he sees coming? This is a game of inches, and if - in this case - Mulumba had merely aimed for the QB's stomach, the QB may have been able to continue his motion and deliver the ball more on target. (He looked like he was trying to hit the QB in the shoulder to stop the throw.) But, that doesn't make the QB "helpless." He could have avoided the contact entirely by stopping his throwing motion, moving away, or falling down and giving himself up (ala P. Manning). Unfortunately, most people - and the unwritten rules - would view that as a soft play by the QB.
Not saying - at all - the rules shouldn't protect against helmet to helmet contact with a defenseless player, but perhaps the unwritten rules of the game need to change as well: i.e., changing player behavior. Players and commentators get all jacked up about physical play and the guts of "standing in there and delivering the ball," but there is no "right" to deliver the ball. I am not aware of any rule asserting absolute protection for "once in the throwing motion" (beyond the interpretation of fumbles versus interceptions). The QB retains the choice to continue the throwing motion throughout the throw, despite the awareness of the incoming defender.
If Mulumba had hit him late, that's a completely different story, and I agree that any helmet to helmet contact is to be penalized - except when it relates to a player running the ball, it seems; hence, the lack of application of the "helpless" player requirement of the rule.
No conclusion, just a few thoughts that occurred to me while being annoying we had a player ejected.
Last edited:
I guess it is a deterrent in that coaches emphasize better tackling form because they don't want the 15 yard penalty or player to be ejected. Hopefully that eventually trickles down and actually stops these hits from taking place, but it probably won't.
I was referring more to the players' mindset during the play, as if they are actively thinking about the possibility of being ejected, as a deterrent, when they go to make a tackle. To me, the root of targeting should be the intent to injure or purposely leading with the helmet, and I don't believe that to be the case in the vast majority of these targeting ejections. Often times, the defensive player is about to make a perfect, legal, form tackle and the offensive player drops their head to brace for the hit. There is literally nothing the defender can do, yet this ridiculous rule kicks him out of the game and maybe half of the next one, like he did it on purpose. That's what I meant by it not being a deterrent. They are acting like it's a decision, when it's 99% of the time not.
They are already being penalized 15 yards for it, and I just don't agree that there should be anything further. I could maybe get behind the idea of it becoming an Unsportsmanlike penalty, where you get two and you're gone, but more often than not, a good defensive play is being treated as more egregious than the actual dirty Unsportsmanlike plays.
Last edited:
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure where you are getting "unwritten rules", as to the bolded above, that is exactly what makes the QB defenseless per the written rule.
"Helpless" in that written rule only applies to the punishments/penalties for helmet-to-helmet contact. There is no rule - written or otherwise - that you can't hit the QB when he is in the motion of throwing the ball. And, I'm not saying that helmet-to-helmet shouldn't be penalized. But, I believe there should be more leniency for defensive players when the QB is not "helpless" in the sense of a WR going across the middle of the field. The QB throwing into an oncoming defensive lineman is not "helpless" in the same way. He has conscious choices to make regarding his own safety. (Different story if he is hit from the blindside, of course.) And when you levy the penalties in this way, you create impact-of-play decisions that have to happen in fractions of a second. The deterrent of which falls entirely on the defensive players. My point - I suppose - is when the point of contact can so dramatically change the result of the play (whether the throwing motion is impacted or not), the application of the rules needs to be levied more equitably to both sets of choices: i.e., if a QB chooses to stand in and deliver a throw into an oncoming rusher, should he not be treated more similarly to a RB lowering his head to get extra yards?
Like I said, I understand the rules are moving to protecting player safety. I'm all for that. But, the rules can also swing too far in one direction and may need to be adjusted back. I saw Mulumba trying to strike the throwing shoulder of the QB to impact the pass. When you hit a QB flush in the chest and both players tilt toward the QB's back, the defensive helmet will almost invariably slide upwards into the QB's. It's basic physics. The shoulder is a small window, no doubt, but the QB didn't react as if a 280 lb. lineman was about to hit him, until the ball was away.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
You are wrong. The entire rule is pasted below. A QB in the throwing motion is specifically added in Note 2.
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:
This describes targeting as including actions besides just hits with the helmet, some of which don’t involve helmet contact at all. A shoulder to the neck of a receiver can be targeting. An elbow drop to a quarterback’s head could be targeting.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
Also, note the definition of "defenseless player," which is important.
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
- A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
- 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 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, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
- 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 himself up and is sliding feet-first
a QB anytime after a change of possession is a "defenseless player" -- even if the QB is attempting to tackle the player returning the ball?!?!?
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
Where did you grow up? I grew up in New Mexico and the coaching level was really poor. That said, they had us lead with face mask. I guess I was lucky.
somebody
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately with the Mulumba hit, the QB had just delivered the ball and there was contact to the head. These actions bring the rule into play. The questionable part of whether it's targeting is the "forcible" requirement of the rule. It seemed incidental in this particular play, but officials are being conservative. As MM said afterward, we have to do a better job of hitting lower.
And this is the reality now of how they call it. If you hit a QB in the head, even with a glancing or sliding blow while he is doing anything other than clearly running the ball forward and between the tackles (essentially making himself a running back) you can expect the flag to come out.
Had no issue with the Laguda hit getting flagged as "targeting". I thought Mulumba's targeting call was TOTAL BS, and a very bad call. Mulamba's hit on the qb Looked like a clean hit to me. He had absolutely no time to ease off the gas, and I do not think the QB was defenseless.
If the players are taught to blitz the backfield with heads down and low, we'll start seeing the buffs getting juked left and right for large gashers. Really bad call, IMHO.
If the players are taught to blitz the backfield with heads down and low, we'll start seeing the buffs getting juked left and right for large gashers. Really bad call, IMHO.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
So, even though it fits the letter of the rule, it was a bad call?
Such a deterrent!
It has absolutely led to a reduction in the number of helmet to helmet hits that occurred as a result of a defender purposefully tackling high, or launch the crown of his helmet into the facemask of a defenseless player.
You are a seeing a lot more incidental helmet to helmet being called now. It is frustrating, but it is working.
How do you hit lower when your trying to get up as high as you can to block a pass?
Do you have numbers to back that up?
No. But I have watched enough football since the rule was implemented to have faith in my opinion.
Lol, ok well, the numbers just posted say that helmet to helmet targeting calls have increased by 57% YOY. And honestly, even if you're right, that is all part of my broader point on the issue. This rule is not stopping helmet to helmet contact or "targeting" from happening, but instead, it's severely punishing more players and teams than ever before, for things out of their control.
The bigger culprit to this, IMO, is the NCAA expanded their definition of what is a "defenseless" player. Because of that, a lot more personal fouls for hitting a "Defenseless Player" are getting called. ANY contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player, is targeting.