B1G officiating STILL sucks...
- Thread starter DAG10
- Start date
Agree. Can’t have tO$U Lining up against Oregon next weekend not at full strength. Review blew it on purpose.
I may not be up-to-date on the targeting rules, but that didn't seem like it to me.
Lead with his helmet and hit helmet to helmet. Thought it was both live and in review.
Last edited:
There needs to be more consistency with this penalty. This was definitely worse than the play that got Thieneman ejected in the 2017 Michigan game.
I'm good with it being called the way it was. One issue I always have with targeting calls, is the offensive player dropping his head too, making it even harder to avoid which is what appears to happen hear.
To me, if the offensive player drops his head, it should not be called. Now it was poor form tackling as there was no wrap up attempt, just an attempt to hit the player as hard as possible, but that is not the rule.
To me, if the offensive player drops his head, it should not be called. Now it was poor form tackling as there was no wrap up attempt, just an attempt to hit the player as hard as possible, but that is not the rule.
The main problem with the targeting penalty is it was written intentionally vague, with enough prohibitions to appease those who were wanting to fundamentally change football due to CTE, but not specific enough to enforce with any consistency.
Here are is an excerpt from an article that attempted to summarize the rule:
Although these are not all the indicators of targeting, here are some defined by the NCAA rulebook:
Players are also prohibited from targeting and marking forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. The rulebook says: “When in question, a player is defenseless.” And in this case, there needs to be at least one indicator of targeting.
Here are some of the rulebook’s examples of a defenseless player:
Here are is an excerpt from an article that attempted to summarize the rule:
So what is targeting in college football?
Simply put, the targeting rule prohibits players from making forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of the helmet, which the NCAA defines as “the portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask.” That means it has to be more than a legal tackle or block or playing the ball, and when in question, it’s ruled a foul.Although these are not all the indicators of targeting, here are some defined by the NCAA rulebook:
- 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
Players are also prohibited from targeting and marking forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. The rulebook says: “When in question, a player is defenseless.” And in this case, there needs to be at least one indicator of targeting.
Here are some of the rulebook’s examples of a defenseless player:
- 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.
They covered it at length during the telecast...and, it was a consensus seemingly among the commentators and official (Mike Pereira) that it was indeed targeting.
To someone else's point in the thread...there is SO much inconsistency and subjectivity around the rule and enforcement of such, and, that in and of itself is a huge issue.
In this case, there was clearly helmet-to-helmet contact, and, the defender...while not launching at the offensive player with his head, definitely led with his head.
To another's point...targeting has been called for far less so many times...a couple that involved Purdue, and, one in particular that involved Clemson last year.
This one seemed pretty clear...and, yet, it was not even reviewed apparently for consideration.
The cynic in me says it gives the refs another 'handle' to turn and influence outcomes.
Holding, PI, targeting... all judgment calls, huge momentum killers
I noticed Mike Pereira (whom pisses me off personally...I digress) stated targetting then shut up and made no further comment as the head ref was making the final call. Seems to me that he didn't want to upset the review caller and go against the grain.
Far less helmet to helmets have been called targeting. Either make the call in review or get rid of the rule completely and to hell with player safety which I highly doubt they will ever do.
Fire Mike Pereira while they are at it. I don't like him blabbering when his comments has no vote weigh in on the review call at all, and in this case, he is WRONG which just pisses off half the viewers.
The cynic in me says that if it were a Purdue player who done that, then it would be targeting and ejection.
Furthermore, the ref crew might need tO$U player to cover their already placed bet. Yes, I'm cynical to that. We have seen Joe Tiller era home game against Penn State back in the day with questionable calls within the game so bad they investigated it and dug up bad news on the head official gambling past. He was ultimately cleared.
Drehs: Fellow officials cringe at latest alleged scandal
The allegations in an investigation into the background of Big Ten referee Stephen Pamon has other officials around the country waiting for the next shoe to drop, writes ESPN.com's Wayne Drehs.
Joe Tiller was pissed at that game.
Last edited:
It would have been sickening for that to have been called targeting. Like Gus said, this is football. American football!
Was this hit not also just American football? Or does it matter who the teams are?
No, that hit was a pretty clear visual of targeting. The hit last night actually looked as if it went through the shoulder. A simple hard hit. Many of us who love the game don't want to see players thrown out over a hit like that.
It has nothing at all to do with your loving the game...there was CLEAR helmet-to-helmet contact, and, zero effort made to tackle the (defenseless) receiver.
It absolutely met the definition of targeting...particularly with respect to how the rule has been imposed/upheld in the past.
As far as Gus and his opinion...there is not a commentator in America with less credibility, so, to have him weigh in on the matter...AFTER his partner and the Fox official indicating that it was indeed targeting, was both worthless, and, expected as such.
I didn't see it that way. There's helmet to helmet contact sure, but that by rule doesn't necessarily equate to targeting. The way I see it is that #12 leads with his left should pad but due to the fact that the ball carrier lowers his head their helmets make contact. Replay booth confirmed the receiver had possession so therefore he isn't considered a defenseless player and the caveat of forcible contact around the head or neck area is off the table.
Last edited:
One additional point of clarification....IIRC, if the player is considered defenseless, than any forcible contact to the head/neck area is targeting......whether it's via contact from helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.
I'll still maintain that I've seen a lot less called than what I saw from last night's play.
Disclaimer - I most likely have inherent biases against Ohio State, but I do try to look past that....on some occasions.
There is no rhyme or reason to it. See the Barnes "targeting" call from last year. It's a 50/50 coin toss now. I think they said "OK it's targeting, but this is a nationally televised game & do we really want to throw the OSU defensive captain out of the game 5 minutes into it & deal with the fallout from Buckeye nation?" No. "After further review, there was no targeting".
Potentially yes.....I think there's a viable argument the defender was leading with his head, though. I can see it going either way.
Agreed on all points. It's written to encompass both leading with the helmet and hitting the other guy in the helmet. And it is extremely subjective, and therefore, corruptible.
A tackler can't control if the other guy ducks his head at the last second and he gets hit in the head. But the tackler can control his own angle of attack. In the Thieneman vs. Michigan clip you can see he is standing almost straight vertical when making the hit. The Michigan player's head just so happens to land at pad level. Whereas the OSU tackler is bent over going in at about 45 degrees helmet forward which opens him up for "leading with the head" interpretation when the helmet-to-helmet contact is made.
Last edited:
To me it looked like he had facemask in position to put it in the ball carriers chest and when #22 lowered his head they collided. If you watch it in real time, I think it shows he makes contact with his left shoulder pad as you can see his left arm fly up in the arm from such a forceful hit. I was surprised it wasn't overturned and ruled targeting as I've seen much less get called.
Booth "officials" are about as credible and accountable as asking Fauci if wearing a cloth bathing suit will keep pee from getting in a pool.
Last edited:
Targeting is basically a coin flip. Couldn't find a specific video of the Barnes targeting last year but it is at the 15:40 mark of this video. (I don't recommend replaying that entire Rutgers game from last year) Looks possibly bad at first sight but his shoulder does most of the contact. Doesn't matter. Ejected. Maybe last night's OSU player is a sign that they're going to back off some this year & only call it if it is obvious. But I think it's more 'we can't throw the defensive captain of a top 5 team out of a game in the first 5 minutes.'
Agree that’s a pretty weak targeting call. My only guess is they deemed it forcible contact to a defenseless receiver. (Looked like he had possession)
If it was that obvious I'm pretty sure it would have been called targeting. It obviously wasn't obvious. Thus the debate.
well, no, it is pretty clear.
Given what we've seen over the years, it clearly was targeting.
The only rational explanation is, they're easing up (as someone pointed out earlier).
I respectfully disagree with you. They had to look at a bunch of different camera angles and slow it way down to even figure out if helmets touched first or shoulder pads. Or wait, maybe the face masks touched... Having a theory is nice but there has been no indication that targeting is being eased up on. I actually think they didn’t believe it was targeting
Yeah, we know that.
It doesn't matter how many camera angles they looked at. Seen this before, many times, and it's been targeting. That's no theory.
You can believe what you choose, but the point is they've been very inconsistent with that call, and that has been a clear targeting penalty in the past.
And I still disagree with you. So did the officials on the field and in the replay booth. As well as many other observers. Just because you say it doesn’t make it so.
well, you can still do that. Doesn't matter.
Just because you disagree doesn't make it so.
Similar threads
