09-25-2016, 09:17 AM
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
------------
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.
 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.