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)
Re: Targeting.... - CTcard - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 09:17 AM)MT link Wrote: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.
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 only thing I can think of is that the replay officials thought that a launch was a necessary part of targeting.
...
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.Â
The annoucement of the replay review covered the replay official's interpretation.
First he specifically mentioned that Owusu had "completed the catch and became a runner", so he was not by definition of defenseless player. That part of the call appears to be entirely correct.
Secondly, they stated that "there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet". While I guess technically there is some room to quibble about just what that covers, it seems to me pretty clear that what was meant was that Goodman didn't make contact with the crown of his helmet.
Now technically, there is some grey there because there is no useful definition anywhere in the rulebook about what is the crown of the helmet; i.e. the statement "the top portion of the helmet" is not a useful definition.
Goodman didn't initiate contact with the very top 1 inch circle or so of his helmet, but it would seem to me that anything above the facemask is reasonably the crown. Particularly given the extreme, and extremely dangerous, nature of the hit and the fact that the rule says "when in question it is a foul", I am rather shocked that this wasn't called targeting on the field and even moreso upon review. But, we don't have to guess about just exactly what the refs ruled, they told us.
Re: Targeting.... - Roberton3 - 09-25-2016
This got a mention in ESPN's GameDay Final, under "Worst Plays":
Quote:1. Somehow, replay officials confirmed a ruling on the field that this hit on Stanford's Francis Owusu was not targeting.
See http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/page/gamedayfinal092416/lsu-tigers-les-miles-lose-bizarre-fashion-auburn-tigers-tennessee-volunteers-wisconsin-badgers-score-big-wins
Re: Targeting.... - Roberton3 - 09-25-2016
This got a mention in ESPN's GameDay Final, under "Worst Plays":
Quote:1. Somehow, replay officials confirmed a ruling on the field that this hit on Stanford's Francis Owusu was not targeting.
See http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/page/gamedayfinal092416/lsu-tigers-les-miles-lose-bizarre-fashion-auburn-tigers-tennessee-volunteers-wisconsin-badgers-score-big-wins
Re: Targeting.... - 82 Card - 09-25-2016
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent. Things like leading with the head and launching are possible indicators of bad intent. However, if the ref thinks the guy was trying to do a legal tackle, it's OK even if he maims the guy with the crown of his helmet.
To me, it looks like an intentional hit to the head with the helmet He lowered his head, lead with his head and made no effort to wrap his arms around Owusu. The head but wasn't incidental to a tackle, it was the tackle. Not sure how much clearer malicious intent can be, but that was our player being maimed so I am not exactly impartial.
Re: Targeting.... - 82 Card - 09-25-2016
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent. Things like leading with the head and launching are possible indicators of bad intent. However, if the ref thinks the guy was trying to do a legal tackle, it's OK even if he maims the guy with the crown of his helmet.
To me, it looks like an intentional hit to the head with the helmet He lowered his head, lead with his head and made no effort to wrap his arms around Owusu. The head but wasn't incidental to a tackle, it was the tackle. Not sure how much clearer malicious intent can be, but that was our player being maimed so I am not exactly impartial.
Re: Targeting.... - CTcard - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 08:41 PM)82 Card link Wrote:The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent.
Yes, theoretically those words could mean different things, which is why I wrote "While I guess technically there is some room to quibble about just what that covers, ..."
However, under the circumstances the fact that the referee specified that there was no targeting "with the crown of the helmet" makes it rather clear in practice what was meant.Â
Re: Targeting.... - CTcard - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 08:41 PM)82 Card link Wrote:The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent.
Yes, theoretically those words could mean different things, which is why I wrote "While I guess technically there is some room to quibble about just what that covers, ..."
However, under the circumstances the fact that the referee specified that there was no targeting "with the crown of the helmet" makes it rather clear in practice what was meant.Â
Re: Targeting.... - 82 Card - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 09:11 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=82 Card link=topic=15760.msg173280#msg173280 date=1474861274]
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent.
Yes, theoretically those words could mean different things, which is why I wrote "While I guess technically there is some room to quibble about just what that covers, ..."
However, under the circumstances the fact that the referee specified that there was no targeting "with the crown of the helmet" makes it rather clear in practice what was meant.
[/quote]
I see the statement as a recitation of the infraction considered and not as an indication that the crown of the helmet is the missing element.
Re: Targeting.... - 82 Card - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 09:11 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=82 Card link=topic=15760.msg173280#msg173280 date=1474861274]
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent.
Yes, theoretically those words could mean different things, which is why I wrote "While I guess technically there is some room to quibble about just what that covers, ..."
However, under the circumstances the fact that the referee specified that there was no targeting "with the crown of the helmet" makes it rather clear in practice what was meant.
[/quote]
I see the statement as a recitation of the infraction considered and not as an indication that the crown of the helmet is the missing element.
Re: Targeting.... - martyup - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 08:41 PM)82 Card link Wrote:The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent. Things like leading with the head and launching are possible indicators of bad intent. However, if the ref thinks the guy was trying to do a legal tackle, it's OK even if he maims the guy with the crown of his helmet.
To me, it looks like an intentional hit to the head with the helmet He lowered his head, lead with his head and made no effort to wrap his arms around Owusu. The head but wasn't incidental to a tackle, it was the tackle. Not sure how much clearer malicious intent can be, but that was our player being maimed so I am not exactly impartial.
I don't think "intent" is required for the violation.
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)
Re: Targeting.... - martyup - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 08:41 PM)82 Card link Wrote:The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent. Things like leading with the head and launching are possible indicators of bad intent. However, if the ref thinks the guy was trying to do a legal tackle, it's OK even if he maims the guy with the crown of his helmet.
To me, it looks like an intentional hit to the head with the helmet He lowered his head, lead with his head and made no effort to wrap his arms around Owusu. The head but wasn't incidental to a tackle, it was the tackle. Not sure how much clearer malicious intent can be, but that was our player being maimed so I am not exactly impartial.
I don't think "intent" is required for the violation.
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)
Re: Targeting.... - 76lsjumb - 09-25-2016
I haven't spent a lot of time dissecting the rulebook on how exactly to define targeting, but, having seen the replay and [especially] that photo, I'm pretty sure I know how Potter Stewart would come out on this one...
Re: Targeting.... - 76lsjumb - 09-25-2016
I haven't spent a lot of time dissecting the rulebook on how exactly to define targeting, but, having seen the replay and [especially] that photo, I'm pretty sure I know how Potter Stewart would come out on this one...
Re: Targeting.... - Mick - 09-25-2016
I think the on-field official who screwed up that call should be suspended for a week, and I think the replay official should be suspended for a year.
Re: Targeting.... - Mick - 09-25-2016
I think the on-field official who screwed up that call should be suspended for a week, and I think the replay official should be suspended for a year.
Re: Targeting.... - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-25-2016
I often go out of my way to avoid criticizing officials (more often than not it's simply sour grapes) but this, to me, was an obviously blown call. That they reviewed it and still got it wrong is what makes it egregious.
Re: Targeting.... - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-25-2016
I often go out of my way to avoid criticizing officials (more often than not it's simply sour grapes) but this, to me, was an obviously blown call. That they reviewed it and still got it wrong is what makes it egregious.
Re: Targeting.... - 82 Card - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 09:22 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=82 Card link=topic=15760.msg173280#msg173280 date=1474861274]
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent. Things like leading with the head and launching are possible indicators of bad intent. However, if the ref thinks the guy was trying to do a legal tackle, it's OK even if he maims the guy with the crown of his helmet.
To me, it looks like an intentional hit to the head with the helmet He lowered his head, lead with his head and made no effort to wrap his arms around Owusu. The head but wasn't incidental to a tackle, it was the tackle. Not sure how much clearer malicious intent can be, but that was our player being maimed so I am not exactly impartial.
I don't think "intent" is required for the violation.
Quote:RULES[/quote]
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)
Apparent intent is an element of the infraction. "Target and initiate contact with the crown of the helmet" indicates that there are two elements. Initiating contact with the crown of the helmet alone is not sufficient. "Target" is defined as "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." This is what I referred to as "evil intent."
I think the video shows evil intent. Given that the only action is a head butt and there is no indication of an attempt to make a legal tackle, what else could it be?
Re: Targeting.... - 82 Card - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 09:22 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=82 Card link=topic=15760.msg173280#msg173280 date=1474861274]
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent. Things like leading with the head and launching are possible indicators of bad intent. However, if the ref thinks the guy was trying to do a legal tackle, it's OK even if he maims the guy with the crown of his helmet.
To me, it looks like an intentional hit to the head with the helmet He lowered his head, lead with his head and made no effort to wrap his arms around Owusu. The head but wasn't incidental to a tackle, it was the tackle. Not sure how much clearer malicious intent can be, but that was our player being maimed so I am not exactly impartial.
I don't think "intent" is required for the violation.
Quote:RULES[/quote]
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)
Apparent intent is an element of the infraction. "Target and initiate contact with the crown of the helmet" indicates that there are two elements. Initiating contact with the crown of the helmet alone is not sufficient. "Target" is defined as "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." This is what I referred to as "evil intent."
I think the video shows evil intent. Given that the only action is a head butt and there is no indication of an attempt to make a legal tackle, what else could it be?
Re: Targeting.... - Bosco - 09-25-2016
I always have a mixed feeling about football. I love the game. For me it is like the most exciting thing in the world to watch. On the other hand, if you ask me if I would let my kids play football I will probably hesitate about it. Even though all the pro-football officials are claiming how safe the sport is, how many rules and cares are there for protecting players, how much every person cares about player safety when it comes to the play actions in the game. In reality, what I saw is so many such kind of subjective rulings in the game and people just treat it as "it is football" or "home court advantage" and judging everything only by win/loss.
I still remember the game between Notre Dame and Texas, they also faced similar situation, in which Hunter was knocked out of the game in the third quarter. And I did not see any official got suspended nor any action taken after the game. On the other hand, when there was some miss ruling in the game between Central Michigan and Oklahoma State, the suspensions came fast and covered all officials involved. I mean, shouldn't player safety be treated at least as important as win/loss of the game?
Anyways, as other people mentioned, I don't see any action will be taken in the coming week. Just feel so bad every time when such things happened. To me it is like encouraging those unsafe actions on the field.