Targeting.... - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Targeting.... (/thread-12717.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Targeting.... (/thread-12717.html)
Targeting.... - dabigv13 - 09-25-2016
Didn't see it so well in person, but watching the replays it is such a no brainer. What were the refs thinking? Clearly the crown of his helmet is the first thing to make impact, with the facemask of Owusu.
Hopefully the conference comments this week.
Re: Targeting.... - cardfan77 - 09-25-2016
Can the conference or whoever penalize/fine/discipline the game officials for not calling it? If that is not targeting then I donʻt know what is. It could have not been more obvious.
Re: Targeting.... - dabigv13 - 09-25-2016
Some video here...
http://brobible.com/sports/article/stanford-wr-francis-owusu-knocked-out-helmet-to-helmet/
Re: Targeting.... - 82 Card - 09-25-2016
From some angles, it looks like the hit was with the front of the helmet but one of the angles clearly shows it as being with the crown. The TV commentary during the game said that the officials took the position that the hit was with the face mask.
The distinction matters because Owusu did not meet the definition of a defenseless player. A defenseless player cannot be hit in head with any part of helmet, fist or forearm. If it's not a defenseless player, the hit is only a violation if it is with crown of helmet. Hits with crown of helmet are not allowed regardless of the part of the body that is hit.
Source: http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342
Re: Targeting.... - dabigv13 - 09-25-2016
It's a textbook call. Especially since they reviewed the play! Inexcusable.
Re: Targeting.... - 82 Card - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 01:43 AM)dabigv link Wrote:It's a textbook call. Especially since they reviewed the play! Inexcusable.
The only way the ruling is possible is if they didn't bother to look at or didn't have available all of the angles. The work of the reviewing officials needs to be carefully reviewed.
Given the clear video evidence, is it possible to penalize the player after the game is over, perhaps with exclusion from the next game?
Re: Targeting.... - Jabbahop - 09-25-2016
Especially frustrating given his brother Chris's experience and the stated goal of safety.
Re: Targeting.... - Hurlburt88 - 09-25-2016
I remain upset by that no-call. And I believe the same player hit Schulz in the helmet earlier to force an incomplete pass, and came flying in head-first on many running plays. #21 IIRC. I did not see him in the 2nd half . . . wonder if he ended up woozy himself
I do believe during the week this can be reviewed and a suspension given for the next game. Concerns about safety definitely ignored by the crew IMHO
Re: Targeting.... - Stymie - 09-25-2016
UCLA came to play, but they stepped over the line of fair play when they targeted at least 3 of our players, illegally and potentially life threateningly. The officials in this game should never be able to referee another game. Ever. Tell them to go back to selling life insurance or whatever they do for a day job and tell them that they are lucky that (as far as we know now) nobody was disabled by their complete incompetence.
Re: Targeting.... - SemperCard - 09-25-2016
Ucla players were definitely leading with helmets beyond the limits of safety and good sportsmanship.  There was 1 almost late hit on Burns where the defender actually came out the worse for it.
1.  I admire the resolve and class with which our players and coach handled this.
2. Nothing funny about targeting and the egregious non-call, especially considering all the Owusu family has had to endure.
3.  But did you all see the shot to the crotch that Burns gave their d-lineman who was hovering over him after a sack?  The guy couldn't line up on the next play.  Shades of "The Longest Yard" and deserved.
Re: Targeting.... - Stymie - 09-25-2016
....and just to add.
Jim Mora should go onto the sports media and apologize for the disgusting display of helmet to helmet violence which his players perpetrated. If he had been a compassionate and thoughtful human being he would have pulled the perps off the field immediately and told them to put on their civvies and sit in the stands.
I don't want to watch any highlights of this game, even though it was a great win for us, because I NEVER want to see again any player, on whichever side of the ball, find himself in harm's way just playing a game that he loved.
Re: Targeting.... - Phogge - 09-25-2016
Mora has been preaching toughness because his team has been labeled as soft. So this one little DB translates it to play dirty. Vanderdoes acts out and berates nobody in particular post game in an act of sportsmanship (lack of) and a couple of Bruins go all tears on the bench just like the loser Duck did at Stanford Stadium in 2013.
Meanwhile, the good guys win again. Nice to see Rosen and Shaw post game. No poor loser there.
Re: Targeting.... - OutsiderFan - 09-25-2016
There is no credible explanation to undo the fact the hit on Owusu was targeting. It was a text book example of the hits that are suppose to result in not only penalties, but ejections. Considering the hit can't be taken back, and how the game ended, I'm sure no Stanford fan can be too upset in the bigger picture.
Now, as for the point about Mora's players playing dirty...Â
This is football. It's a gladiator sport. After watching the first half, my thought was basically that UCLA was being the more physical and aggressive team, regardless of whether UCLA defenders were being dirty. Stanford had to step up its compete level and start throwing its own punches so to speak, or they would be crushed.
So they stuffed the run, got after Rosen, and it was Stanford delivering the biggest blows in the second half.Â
Re: Targeting.... - rudruff - 09-25-2016
I guess I can't be as disappointed in the officiating crew as I am at the replay officials. Crews miss stuff all the time. But the replay was pretty hard to dismiss.
Re: Targeting.... - 81alum - 09-25-2016
And it was not just an isolated incident, but part of a pattern. That one particular defender led with his helmet repeatedly--he used the helmet to knock the ball out of Dalton's grasp--apparently legally--and again used his helmet against Owusu's face. If you keep leading with your helmet you will eventually do someone grievous injury. and it needs to stop.
By the way, I think the call was blown on two levels. Owusu hung onto the ball until his forearm hit the ground. The ground caused the fumble--except it can't. It should not have been a turnover at all. If he had possession, then it should have been a completed pass.
Listening to Todd Husak over the years, I have come to trust his judgment on a lot of things. I don't think he is nakedly biased on these calls despite his Stanford allegiance. He pointed out several critical holding non-calls on UCLA, to go with the targeting/fumble. If we had lost, there would have been some bitterness about the the way the game was officiated. It was not only the targeting call.
Husak also severely criticized Shaw for his time management and questioned the punt.
Re: Targeting.... - ChicagoCard - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 07:28 AM)Phogge link Wrote:Mora has been preaching toughness because his team has been labeled as soft. So this one little DB translates it to play dirty. Vanderdoes acts out and berates nobody in particular post game in an act of sportsmanship (lack of) and a couple of Bruins go all tears on the bench just like the loser Duck did at Stanford Stadium in 2013.
I didn't like Jim Mora's post-game body language as he addressed the topic of his teams' physicality...
https://youtu.be/9umruupeEFs?t=109
Re: Targeting.... - needle - 09-25-2016
Shaw went out of his way to compliment Mora in a post-game interview, but I find the guy very easy to root against (tho obviously I hope he coaches the Bruins forever).
Re: Targeting.... - M T - 09-25-2016
UCLA #21 is
 21 Tahaan Goodman DB 6-2 202 SR Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Because he's a senior, we possibly won't get to see him in a game situation again. However, I hope the other teams take note of his actions yesterday and contemplate what they can do to avoid his injuring one of their players.
From http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342
Quote: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)
KEY ELEMENTS
Crown of the Helmetthe top portion of the helmet.
Defenseless playera player not in position to defend himself.
    Examples (Rule 2-27-14):     Â
  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.
KEY INDICATORS
         Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:
  Launcha 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 areaeven 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
------------
I would like the officials & announcers from ABC to go back and review their non-call on the Schultz reception (2nd 13:12). One could imagine that if this call had been made, the very dangerous Owusu hit might not have been made. The targeting here was by the same UCLA #21.  While officials on the field may miss some calls, they clearly missed both, and had they called the first, the hit that caused the injury likely would not have been done. I think it is virtually inexcusable to miss either of these calls, because the hits were in the open field, where the ball was. One or two officials must be looking there at the time.
In this case, the victim of the targeting is defenseless. Review the hit from the camera angle where Schulz is facing the camera and Goodman's back is to the camera. Before Goodman launches himself, his face is toward his target. After launches, he rotates his head to lead with the top of his helmet. Upon contact, his face is no longer looking at the player. He has turned his body so that his right shoulder is to the ground. Although Goodman's trajectory is such that he leads with the crown of his helmet, his target is not perpendicular to his flight. The ball carrier's head is on that trajectory, but he doesn't get there because he first strikes the ball carrier's arm with the top portion of his helmet and pins it against the body. From contact, Goodman's head crumples toward his back shoulder over the next few frames until his lead shoulder contacts the body.
I believe this is a violation of 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."Â This isn't a violation of 9-1-4 and so the fact that the player is defenseless isn't taken into account.
--------------
Regarding the Owusu injury (2nd 7:03) and the key indicators.
UCLA #21 did not launch. His feet were clearly on the ground.
He did crouch and do an upward thrust. His head goes up a good 12" from before the thrust to the follow through after contact.
He led with his helmet and did contact the helmet.
He did lower the head and initiated contact with the crown of the helmet.
It was not any one of the four "less risk" of a foul.
I believe it is clear that the hit was a violation of both 9-1-3 and 9-1-4.
In my opinion, Owusu would not be ruled a defenseless player, because he had the ball and he had run a few steps after catching the ball. The hit was like a blind-side block, but he was the ball carrier. (I won't say this is a tackle because the offender's arms were below his own shoulders (no attempt to grab the carrier -- it was an attempt to hit with the head, not to tackle).)
The only thing I can think of is that the replay officials thought that a launch was a necessary part of targeting.
While I can imagine that a respectable response would be for UCLA to admit this was targeting and to voluntarily sit the offender through the first half of the next game, it probably won't happen.
BUT, what should happen is that the PAC-12 and the replay crew should publicly acknowledge that this was a dangerous play that was in violation of the rules, and that the replay crew is being penalized somehow. Further the replay officials should document why they ruled that it was not targeting, so this could be reviewed separately to avoid future errors by officials. The announcement & penalties should be done in order to send a message to all players (PAC-12 & others) and to all officials.
Re: Targeting.... - Row80Critic - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 09:05 AM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:[quote author=Phogge link=topic=15760.msg173068#msg173068 date=1474813716]
Mora has been preaching toughness because his team has been labeled as soft. So this one little DB translates it to play dirty. Vanderdoes acts out and berates nobody in particular post game in an act of sportsmanship (lack of) and a couple of Bruins go all tears on the bench just like the loser Duck did at Stanford Stadium in 2013.
I didn't like Jim Mora's post-game body language as he addressed the topic of his teams' physicality...
https://youtu.be/9umruupeEFs?t=109
[/quote]
Yep, he seemed mighty pleased with the "physicality" of his team. Seems 8 years of frustration finally got to him, so he threw honor and sportsmanship out the window. Seemed pretty clear that Stanford was the more physical team. Mora knew it, so he tried to close the gap any way he could. I'm sure he didn't direct those hits, but they are on him as head coach, especially after he saw what was happening. I couldn't help thinking of this scene from Karate Kid every time ULCA would lob in a helmet grenade...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZZLKhwZ-w
Re: Targeting.... - Hank 91 - 09-25-2016
One more note on the Owusu hit. During the break between the third and fourth quarters, the Rose Bowl video board played a montage of highlights from the first three quarters, clearly meant to get the crowd fired up for the final fifteen minutes. Included in this package, which played to a soundtrack of Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust," was the hit on Owusu. Now, I understand what probably happened -- they're looking for big plays from the game, and a fumble recovery is clearly a big play. They probably had that song chosen ahead of time, or they might even use that song at that point in the game every week. But someone should have put those things together, don't you think? It came off as completely classless.