Targeting

[manhattanbuff]

I’m sorry, defenseless rusher? The QB is running and diving forward to get a first down. He’s not sliding and protecting himself, at which point he woukd be marked well behind the first down line. A player can’t use the rule as a bludgeon to ensure they can get a first down, that’s expressly against the nature of the sport. The point of the rule is player safety, and the player being protected should not be rewarded for diving head first to gain a competative advantage because he knows he’ll be protected by a player-safety rule. That defies the pont of the rule! It becomes a perverse incentive for an offensive player to lead with his head when near a first down, while seemingly requiring defensive players to simply give up the first down yardage in order to protect the player who is choosing not to protect himself.

I completely agree with the “defenseless player” application of the rule, and the Jackson hit should be called. But, the Landman application - especially at the actual speed of the play - gives an unintended, peverse benefit to the offense for choosing to act unsafely and lead with the head - to gain a competative advantage.

This game is about gaining yardage by physical force. A player can’t engage to gain a foot of yardage and then pull some school-yard bull****, Oh! You can’t touch me!!! I win!!!

That call was a bridge WAY too far.

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

The rule is very clear. It was a good call per the rule.

You seem to disagree with the rule. That is not the matter. The rule exists regardless of your opinion of it. The players and officials must abide by it.

 

[Buffnik]

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

The rule is very clear. It was a good call per the rule.

You seem to disagree with the rule. That is not the matter. The rule exists regardless of your opinion of it. The players and officials must abide by it.

That's where I'm at. It was the right call but it's the wrong rule. Ejections seem like the punishment doesn't fit the crime to me in the vast majority of cases.

 

[MtnBuff]

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

The rule is very clear. It was a good call per the rule.

You seem to disagree with the rule. That is not the matter. The rule exists regardless of your opinion of it. The players and officials must abide by it.

Completely correct.

Watch the play. As Landman launched himself towards the runner his head was up, as he got closer the head dropped and the helmets made solid contact.

Had Landman simply kept his head up he would have made the contact with his chestplate and likely would not have been flagged.

Pete Carroll with the Seahawks brought in a rugby coach from Australia to reteach tackling technique. Since then his defenses have remained physical but have had fewer penalties and in the limited statistical sample it appears that they have fewer tackling related injuries.

I played the game. Technique can be learned. Landman has now been ejected twice this season for targeting. As good as he is he doesn't help the team when he is in the locker room due to penalty.

Lots of other linebackers make a large amount of tackles without getting sent off.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Completely correct.

Watch the play. As Landman launched himself towards the runner his head was up, as he got closer the head dropped and the helmets made solid contact.

Had Landman simply kept his head up he would have made the contact with his chestplate and likely would not have been flagged.

Pete Carroll with the Seahawks brought in a rugby coach from Australia to reteach tackling technique. Since then his defenses have remained physical but have had fewer penalties and in the limited statistical sample it appears that they have fewer tackling related injuries.

I played the game. Technique can be learned. Landman has now been ejected twice this season for targeting. As good as he is he doesn't help the team when he is in the locker room due to penalty.

That’s the thing about Landman: he knows these techniques better than nearly every college player. Landman’s dad taught rugby style tackling to Nate since Landman’s dad was a professional rugby player. He is a very instinctual player, but the next staff will need to keep him focused on these fundamentals so he can be on the field all 3 downs.

 

[MtnBuff]

That’s the thing about Landman: he knows these techniques better than nearly every college player. Landman’s dad taught rugby style tackling to Nate since Landman’s dad was a professional rugby player. He is a very instinctual player, but the next staff will need to keep him focused on these fundamentals so he can be on the field all 4 quarters.

fify

 

[GawainBuff]

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

I have watched the play multiple times. In slow motion. He is clearly attempting to gain the first down and is still moving forward! He does not “give himself up,” which implies he has given up the attempt to gain yardage. All of which is why the forward momentum - yardage gained - is marked at the moment the slide begins, not the point farthest forward. In this case, he is seeking additional yardage forward throughout the play as it is the whole point of diving forward to get the first down.

The time frame to which you are referring - his recoil from the impending impact - involves fractions of a second. There is no way to communicate “I’m giving myself up in this play” in the “slow mo” way you interpret. A “slide” to become “defenseless” in this context is an overt, obvious act!

If his last (fraction of a) second recoil from the inoming defender makes him “defenseless,” we are not playing football anymore - as the meaning of “defenseless player” becomes so broad as to vitiate the intent of the rule.

 

[DBT]

Ejecting players is stupid. Period. It can affect the outcome of games. Make it a 15 yard penalty and be done with it.

The word “targeting” implies intent to take aim at and hit a target. In the case of the penalty, the target is the head. Very rarely is that what happened. Generally the tackler is aiming for the torso, legs or whatever. But not the head. Then the ball carrier makes a move as the tackler is committed and the head moves into the target zone. The tackler has no time to react. But he wasn’t “targeting the head.” Just make it a 15 yard penalty for contact with the head and move on.

 

[Bourbon Buff]

I hate it when they say the defender must keep his head up.
EVER PLAY FOOTBALL???

You can't use your shoulders if your head is up. You can't properly hit in the chest with your shoulder and wrap if your head is up.
It is a horrible way to look at this. The defender has every right to be protected as the offensive player.

I think the defender is now supposed to make a tackle the way someone catches a kickball - standing with head up and cradling the runner as he sticks his head into the defender's gut. And the targeting rule will become a little more even-handed when it starts being used against running backs, who use their helmets as battering rams more often than not.

 

[manhattanbuff]

I have watched the play multiple times. In slow motion. He is clearly attempting to gain the first down and is still moving forward! He does not “give himself up,” which implies he has given up the attempt to gain yardage. All of which is why the forward momentum - yardage gained - is marked at the moment the slide begins, not the point farthest forward. In this case, he is seeking additional yardage forward throughout the play as it is the whole point of diving forward to get the first down.

The time frame to which you are referring - his recoil from the impending impact - involves fractions of a second. There is no way to communicate “I’m giving myself up in this play” in the “slow mo” way you interpret. A “slide” to become “defenseless” in this context is an overt, obvious act!

If his last (fraction of a) second recoil from the inoming defender makes him “defenseless,” we are not playing football anymore - as the meaning of “defenseless player” becomes so broad as to vitiate the intent of the rule.

I guess we have different perspectives of the play then. You’re the only person I’ve encountered who didn’t see the play as clear targeting after rewatching.

 

[BuffLuke80]

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

The rule is very clear. It was a good call per the rule.

You seem to disagree with the rule. That is not the matter. The rule exists regardless of your opinion of it. The players and officials must abide by it.

You're right. I've seen plenty of plays, in other conferences, that were let go, at the same time. They were worse than what Landman did. All I know is this, you get guys guessing on what to do on a football field, it's a very bad idea. The rule might be black and white, how it is called isn't. Kinda hard to adjust when that happens.

 

[hokiehead]

as a fan, I really hate loosely-defined or subjective rules.

with all the targeting discussion from the ASU/UT game, I dug into the rule book a bit.

I don't understand how it's possible for a defender to (intentionally) tackle a ball carrier without use of 'forcible contact' with their hand or forearm.

neither 'forcible' or 'forcible contact' are defined in the NCAA rulebook, so we fall back on common definitions. 'forcible' means "using force", which would seemingly applies to every single tackle that occurs in bounds and doesn't involve a ball carrier tripping themselves.

there are two NCAA rules around targeting

• the first involves use of the helmet crown and is less ambiguous.
• the other seems really problematic -- can't make 'forcible contact' with helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. Tackling almost always involves use of hand and forearm, so I'm stuck.

perhaps the most problematic part of the rule, is "when in question, it is a foul"

Can someone ELI5?

relevant sources:

https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR19.pdf

Definition of FORCIBLE

effected by force used against opposition or resistance; characterized by force, efficiency, or energy : powerful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[BuffWarHog]

as a fan, I really hate loosely-defined or subjective rules.

with all the targeting discussion from the ASU/UT game, I dug into the rule book a bit.

I don't understand how it's possible for a defender to (intentionally) tackle a ball carrier without use of 'forcible contact' with their hand or forearm.

neither 'forcible' or 'forcible contact' are defined in the NCAA rulebook, so we fall back on common definitions. 'forcible' means "using force", which would seemingly applies to every single tackle that occurs in bounds and doesn't involve a ball carrier tripping themselves.

there are two NCAA rules around targeting

• the first involves use of the helmet crown and is less ambiguous.
• the other seems really problematic -- can't make 'forcible contact' with helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. Tackling almost always involves use of hand and forearm, so I'm stuck.

perhaps the most problematic part of the rule, is "when in question, it is a foul"

Can someone ELI5?

relevant sources:

https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR19.pdf

View attachment 80329

Definition of FORCIBLE

effected by force used against opposition or resistance; characterized by force, efficiency, or energy : powerful… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

View attachment 80330

…to the head or neck area. I’ve played and watched a lot of football and I find fairly easy to forcible tackle someone using my hands/arms/forearms/ shoulder….without striking them in the head.

 

[hokiehead]

…to the head or neck area. I’ve played and watched a lot of football and I find fairly easy to forcible tackle someone using my hands/arms/forearms/ shoulder….without striking them in the head.

great point. I was not giving that clause it's due importance in this discussion. thank you.

now, rescoping my question in light of that, this means that any contact to the head or neck area qualifies as targeting, ie. uncalled targeting occurs in almost every game and we're left picking nits over how forceful the contact is.

 

[BuffWarHog]

great point. I was not giving that clause it's due importance in this discussion. thank you.

now, rescoping my question in light of that, this means that any contact to the head or neck area qualifies as targeting, ie. uncalled targeting occurs in almost every game and we're left picking nits over how forceful the contact is.

Under article 4, note 1 above, you have to basically a) intentionally hit the dude in the head, preceded by one of the “note” actions (indicator).

The play in question, UT Taffe tackle v ASU receiver, didn’t meet those specifics. Taffe was in an athletic football stance with his arms outstretched in proper tackle form. It was incidental (due to physics and physiology) that their helmets were the first things to touch.

 

[hokiehead]

Under article 4, note 1 above, you have to basically a) intentionally hit the dude in the head, preceded by one of the “note” actions (indicator).

The play in question, UT Taffe tackle v ASU receiver, didn’t meet those specifics. Taffe was in an athletic football stance with his arms outstretched in proper tackle form. It was incidental (due to physics and physiology) that their helmets were the first things to touch.

I think I agree with everything you said here, but I don't udnerstand why the third bullet note wouldn't apply.



the Texas defender appears to me to be leading w/ his head. You noted his arms were outstretched which is what I'm seeing also, but his arms were also spread wide so to not make contact w/ the receiver until after the head did. Maybe this comes down to nuances of how 'leading' is defined in this context.

 

[BuffWarHog]

I think I agree with everything you said here, but I don't udnerstand why the third bullet note wouldn't apply.

View attachment 80349

the Texas defender appears to me to be leading w/ his head. You noted his arms were outstretched which is what I'm seeing also, but his arms were also spread wide so to not make contact w/ the receiver until after the head did. Maybe this comes down to nuances of how 'leading' is defined in this context.

In my opinion, he didn’t “lead with the head” to make “forcible” contact. Yes, force was created when the two hit (F=MA), but the defenders did not put extra oomph into the hit to specifically hit him in the head.
As for the arms, that’s form tackling 101…like, you’d be proud of your kid for that.

 

[hokiehead]

In my opinion, he didn’t “lead with the head” to make “forcible” contact. Yes, force was created when the two hit (F=MA), but the defenders did not put extra oomph into the hit to specifically hit him in the head.
As for the arms, that’s form tackling 101…like, you’d be proud of your kid for that.

ok, we're in agreement on everything except whether the absence of "extra oomph" means the contact didn't meet (implied) criteria for forcible contact

F=ma was exactly where my head was going.

 

[Buffnik]

I think I agree with everything you said here, but I don't udnerstand why the third bullet note wouldn't apply.

View attachment 80349

the Texas defender appears to me to be leading w/ his head. You noted his arms were outstretched which is what I'm seeing also, but his arms were also spread wide so to not make contact w/ the receiver until after the head did. Maybe this comes down to nuances of how 'leading' is defined in this context.

I think where I usually disagree with targeting calls is when the defender wasn't attacking the head or neck area but ended up making contact there because the offensive player lowered his head due to being hit by someone else, sliding late or even ducking his head to lead with it. Also, drives me crazy when a QB's helmet gets grazed on follow through and a personal foul is called.

 

[hokiehead]

I think where I usually disagree with targeting calls is when the defender wasn't attacking the head or neck area but ended up making contact there because the offensive player lowered his head due to being hit by someone else, sliding late or even ducking his head to lead with it. Also, drives me crazy when a QB's helmet gets grazed on follow through and a personal foul is called.

you may be able to relate to the angst I've been fighting for 25 years over what it means in basketball for a defender's feet "to be set" when calling O vs D fouls

 

[unibuff]

When I saw that hit and listened to to the discussion on the broadcast - i thought, I don't know the details of the targeting rule so I don't know if that hit was targeting or not.

But i do know that i have seen similar hits called targeting before- which is a frustrating part of the rule.

 

[BuffWarHog]

I think where I usually disagree with targeting calls is when the defender wasn't attacking the head or neck area but ended up making contact there because the offensive player lowered his head due to being hit by someone else, sliding late or even ducking his head to lead with it. Also, drives me crazy when a QB's helmet gets grazed on follow through and a personal foul is called.

Which is why I agree the call in the Texas game was correct (and why I think the shot against Bond with the forearm uppercut to neck/facask) non-call was incorrect).
Many many people disagree with me.

 

[BuffWarHog]

When I saw that hit and listened to to the discussion on the broadcast - i thought, I don't know the details of the targeting rule so I don't know if that hit was targeting or not.

But i do know that i have seen similar hits called targeting before- which is a frustrating part of the rule.

This is fair.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Under article 4, note 1 above, you have to basically a) intentionally hit the dude in the head, preceded by one of the “note” actions (indicator).

The play in question, UT Taffe tackle v ASU receiver, didn’t meet those specifics. Taffe was in an athletic football stance with his arms outstretched in proper tackle form. It was incidental (due to physics and physiology) that their helmets were the first things to touch.

Outstretched arms that didn't touch the player...

Taffe drove his head into the head of a defenseless receiver. That gets called every time...

We've gotta get you out of Texas, brother.

Scott Van Pelt on Arizona State-Texas blown call: 'That's targeting a hundred times out of a hundred'

The controversy over the blown targeting call in Arizona State's 39-31 double-overtime loss to Texas in the College Football Playoff quarterfinals is picking up

www.si.com

 

[hawg1]

Under article 4, note 1 above, you have to basically a) intentionally hit the dude in the head, preceded by one of the “note” actions (indicator).

The play in question, UT Taffe tackle v ASU receiver, didn’t meet those specifics. Taffe was in an athletic football stance with his arms outstretched in proper tackle form. It was incidental (due to physics and physiology) that their helmets were the first things to touch.

This is the way the replay booth saw it and I think it’s technically correct.

 

[hawg1]

I think I agree with everything you said here, but I don't udnerstand why the third bullet note wouldn't apply.

View attachment 80349

the Texas defender appears to me to be leading w/ his head. You noted his arms were outstretched which is what I'm seeing also, but his arms were also spread wide so to not make contact w/ the receiver until after the head did. Maybe this comes down to nuances of how 'leading' is defined in this context.

Head vs face seems to hold a significance, perhaps the rule of “see what you hit”.

 

[hawg1]

Outstretched arms that didn't touch the player...

Taffe drove his head into the head of a defenseless receiver. That gets called every time...

We've gotta get you out of Texas, brother.

Scott Van Pelt on Arizona State-Texas blown call: 'That's targeting a hundred times out of a hundred'

The controversy over the blown targeting call in Arizona State's 39-31 double-overtime loss to Texas in the College Football Playoff quarterfinals is picking up

www.si.com

“Drove his head”. That’s a key point. He hit him with his head, I say face. What part of the rule are you applying to come up with the “drove” interpretation. Not flaming, asking.

I appreciate there is a conference-agnostic, searching conversation on this matter. It doesn’t happen often.

 

[Uncle Ken]

“Drove his head”. That’s a key point. He hit him with his head, I say face. What part of the rule are you applying to come up with the “drove” interpretation. Not flaming, asking.

I appreciate there is a conference-agnostic, searching conversation on this matter. It doesn’t happen often.

Did you watch the video? He ran at the ASU receiver, in his most vulnerable moment, and hit his head with his own at full speed. I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't know how he could have hit him harder, so I'm unsure what clarification you're seeking regarding "drove".

Not flaming - just confused on the distinction that you're seeking here.

Simmons, arguably ASU's best defender was ejected for hitting Brecht in the face with the exact same part of his helmet, and missed the first half of the Texas game.

Both players were running at full speed and hit defenseless players (I'd argue the ASU receiver was more defenseless than Brecht, but whatever) in the face.

Maybe you can explain the difference to me.

 

[hokiehead]

Head vs face seems to hold a significance, perhaps the rule of “see what you hit”.

Maybe, but I'm not convinced there's any conventional understanding of a person's 'head' that doesn't consider their face as a part of it.

 

[Buffnik]

Maybe, but I'm not convinced there's any conventional understanding of a person's 'head' that doesn't consider their face as a part of it.

True. I think what I struggle with is that the way I was taught to tackle was to lead with my nose and then roll my hips to drive through the ball carrier. I realize I'm a dinosaur and rules have changed to reduce head injuries, but often times when I see something called targeting my reaction is that it was a form tackle and that's just football.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Maybe, but I'm not convinced there's any conventional understanding of a person's 'head' that doesn't consider their face as a part of it.

And a reminder that leading with the crown of the helmet is not relevant to this situation.

For a defenseless player:



Anybody arguing against targeting in this case is either arguing that running full speed into someone isn't forcible, or that the facemask isn't part of the helmet (and somehow more benign than a forearm or hand).