UK-Northwestern Game Thread

[catfaninin]

I just knew someone would post this thought, I'm just sorry it was you. This was not a make up call, and for more reasons than one. First, the referee didn't throw both flags, he just explained the call and by rule they were both correct. However, the call on Snell was a knee jerk reaction and should have been an unsportsmanship only foul. The targeting was just a bad call, but by another official.

Just curious why you think the targeting was a bad call. He very clearly led with the crown of the helmet. Does the fact that it was a hit to the chest rather than the head make it not constitute targeting?

[teamchemistry15]

Didn't mean to say you're wrong, but as a retired official I detest any reference to a make up call.

I expected nothing less! When I got the notification that you quoted me in this thread I really didn't even half to read it 😁

[teamchemistry15]

Just curious why you think the targeting was a bad call. He very clearly led with the crown of the helmet. Does the fact that it was a hit to the chest rather than the head make it not constitute targeting?

I was under the impression targeting only meant targeting the area above the shoulders with the crown of your helmet, but I am not near as educated on football officiating as I am other things in life.

[teamchemistry15]

I don't know if there was an initial flag. If not, the replay official made the call, which he can do. All the officials have receivers and get the buzz from the booth.

Does the official in the booth actually make the targeting call or does he simply buzz them indicating there is something they should go watch on replay?

[teamchemistry15]

I have a very surreal feeling today. This is the most contented I can ever remember being after a loss. I'm very close to feeling how I usually feel after a win.

Same here. We competed like heck, we see the bright future, the coaches had some guts at the end, and that game doesn't really have any negative effect on anything. The one thing I wanted was more Bowden, but that's it.

By the way, Conrad announced he will return for his senior season.

[Catsrock]

Just curious why you think the targeting was a bad call. He very clearly led with the crown of the helmet. Does the fact that it was a hit to the chest rather than the head make it not constitute targeting?

Like teamchemistry15 I believe "targeting" is specifically above the shoulders. But you used to hear the term "spearing" when leading with the crown of the helmet other than to the head. Would likely be 15 yard foul but no ejection if that call still exists.

[Lighthouse]

Does the official in the booth actually make the targeting call or does he simply buzz them indicating there is something they should go watch on replay?

The booth official can buzz the crew on the field at any time, if there's something he wants to make sure of before the next play.

[Lighthouse]

Just curious why you think the targeting was a bad call. He very clearly led with the crown of the helmet. Does the fact that it was a hit to the chest rather than the head make it not constitute targeting?

Not necessarily. I just think that because the offensive player was on the way down when the LB'er made contact, the LB'er was put in a situation he didn't intend to be in. The targeting Rule needs to be rewritten and simplified. Here it is.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. 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 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• 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

This note, made it possible.

[teamchemistry15]

The booth official can buzz the crew on the field at any time, if there's something he wants to make sure of before the next play.

That makes sense. So, even if there isn't a penalty thrown on the field if the replay shows targeting the booth official can buzz the field crew to have them look at it. The same thing actually happened in the Louisville game. There was a helmet to helmet hit, no flag was thrown on the play, they were called to review, and ejected the player for targeting. In that situation there seems to be two or three officials go to the monitor. At that point who makes the decision? Is it solely the head referee? Majority rules? How does that conversation go if the head referee says targeting but the other two say no?

[KCKUKFan]

Didn't mean to say you're wrong, but as a retired official I detest any reference to a make up call.

So you're saying that make up calls don't exist?

[teamchemistry15]

Regarding the no call on the late hit on Johnson where he got hurt, am I the only one who kind of agrees with the no call? If you watch the replay the defender is actually off his feet right at the point of contact when SJ was in bounds. I know it looked bad live, but what can the defender do in that situation? He isn't established on the ground so he really didn't have a choice. Slow motion sometimes doesn't tell the whole story. These kids are big, fast athletes. They get a lot of momentum going when they are running around the field. He was already wrapping him up and off his feet and that momentum, on top of SJ running, carried the play away from the sideline. It looked bad, but I don't think any of it was anything more than a big athletic kid making a play.

[Lighthouse]

So you're saying that make up calls don't exist?

Sir. That is a fact.

[Lighthouse]

That makes sense. So, even if there isn't a penalty thrown on the field if the replay shows targeting the booth official can buzz the field crew to have them look at it. The same thing actually happened in the Louisville game. There was a helmet to helmet hit, no flag was thrown on the play, they were called to review, and ejected the player for targeting. In that situation there seems to be two or three officials go to the monitor. At that point who makes the decision? Is it solely the head referee? Majority rules? How does that conversation go if the head referee says targeting but the other two say no?

Not for sure on this, but I suspect the replay official makes the call. After all, that's what he's there for. During regular season games, there are no monitors on the field.

[SCBlu]

Sir. That is a fact.

I respectfully disagree....and question how you can speak for all NCAA officials.

[catfaninin]

Not necessarily. I just think that because the offensive player was on the way down when the LB'er made contact, the LB'er was put in a situation he didn't intend to be in. The targeting Rule needs to be rewritten and simplified. Here it is.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. 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 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• 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

This note, made it possible.

After reading that I would agree that the wrong call was made.

And your point is a good one. It seems a lot of times targeting calls are a result of the offensive player changing direction once the defensive player starts his tackling motion.

I also agree the rule needs rewritten. It seems very confusing and seems to be interpreted differently by each official.