If you make forcible contact with the head or launch at a player, it doesn't matter if he was defenseless or not. I don't know if that was the case on that play, just making a comment on the rule.
The infamous holding call
- Thread starter CyTwins
- Start date
In the UNI game it was known as a "fumble" that was returned for a TD.
Stop your whining!
In the UNI game it was known as a "fumble" that was returned for a TD.
I was always taught that two wrongs don't make a right.
Actually it does matter:
"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)"
"
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
- 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"
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/new-process-implemented-targeting-fouls-review
Football referees will now stop games to immediately review when players are penalized and face ejection for targeting defenseless opponents above the shoulders or using the crown of the helmet to contact an opponent. This new review process will only impact games that have instant replay capability.
Targeting ARTICLE 5 a. The replay official shall review all targeting fouls, Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. For a player to be disqualified and the Targeting foul to be enforced, all elements of a Targeting foul must be confirmed by the Instant Replay Official. There is no option for stands as a part of a Targeting review. If any element of Targeting cannot be confirmed, then the Replay Official shall overturn the targeting foul. Targeting elements include: 1. Rule 9-1-3: (a) A player takes aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. (b) An indicator of targeting is present. 2. Rule 9-1-4: (a) A defenseless opponent (Rule 2-27-14). (b) A player takes aim at a defenseless opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area. (c) An indicator of targeting is present. b. The replay official may create a targeting
Essentially this rule states that if you lead with your head, regardless if the opponent is defenseless, it is targeting. It's to protect the player making the tackle as well as the person being tackled.
I guess if you think he used the crown they could have reviewed. The player definitely wasn't defenseless. I think it's nitpicking if you want that to be a targeting foul. They'll have to start reviewing every time a running back carries the ball up the middle. I'm all for protecting defenseless players which is why you see it called when a receiver gets popped on a catch, but to call it when the ball is being carried on a run is over the top. Maybe they should start calling the offensive player for targeting when he lowers his head to absorb a tackle.
The last four posts or so belong in the "football is screwed" thread.
Actually with this clip it is a complete miss call on the refs part. uncovered TE was within 4 yards of the ball as his arm was hit........ So thanks ISU fans for helping with the refs missed call on the intentional grounding that never should have been called.
If you were at the game, or watching on TV, you could hear the crack of the 2 helmets hitting. It is not nitpicking. This is an incredibly dangerous collision (more so than a run up the middle where both players have little or no room to build up speed for the hit). This hit was massive, and the fact that the force of the hit started from the helmet directly to the helmet of another player make it incredibly dangerous. The purpose of the leading with the crown of the helmet protects the tackler more than the carrier. Take a look back at Luther vs. Central College where a player dropped his helmet and led with the crown and it got him paralyzed.
Looks like CMC took a page from Fitz and did a 2 second throwing game. short passes negate pass rush every time. Iowa does not do that.
Yeah I really don't know if what was called on the field was targeting or not because I honestly don't think referees know what the rule is either. I mean watching the NFL this weekend shows that those refs have no idea what the rule is on those types of calls either.
I was just letting you know that you indeed don't have to be defenseless to receive a targeting penalty that's all.
Its this that reinforces what I said early in this thread... I don't understand what H2H is then. Anyone have a gif / vid of the H2H no call?
Yeah, against an Iowa zone that did not do much but play base 4-3 due to new personnel this game. Which is what Fitz at NW does everytime we play them and does it effectively. ISU offense looked just like that this game.
Yes but he was getting mugged and there were no calls on that this game so we went away from it.