• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Wing Targeting Call

griz4life said:
That call needs to be appealed to the Nth tier of the whatever ladder this stuff goes up. I suspect that once again we have the NCAA imposing standards on an FCS school that it would never, ever impose on a Power 5 school, or any bottom feeder FBS team.

It would be great if all officiating and appeals of officiating were equal but they are not and never will be if the bad calls go unchallenged. Didn't we have an unsportsmanlike call for celebration earlier this season?

I would like to see the non P5 and FCS schools push for a lottery system to select officials for games. That would be real humbling for NCAA officiating.
Click to expand...

I also think stuff like this should include detailed reasons why, much like review booths should. Otherwise, it all depends on what Joe Reviewer had for breakfast.
 
AZDoc said:
I also think stuff like this should include detailed reasons why, much like review booths should. Otherwise, it all depends on what Joe Reviewer had for breakfast.
Click to expand...
Agreed Doc, very much agreed. How do we know that we didn't get the details back to the university after the review committee completed the review though. I'm sure that they full documented it, but it's like the camera view that they apparently used to arrive at the initial call that was generated by the replay booth. We will never see it.
 
mthoopsfan said:
I found a much better video and then saw a 2d good video. No, I saw 2 good videos of the play. You need to catch up. I'm not the only person who saw the two good videos. Many saw it. And, after seeing a bad video, I then found a good video from the game. Griz Addict is wrong. I can tell you that.
Click to expand...
No I'm not wrong. I was at the game and it happened right in front of me. In person you couldn't even see Wings shoulder but, his helmet went right into the face mask of the Idaho player. It was the right call. You saying I'm wrong because you watched a bad angle camera view, is hilarious. Dumbf
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJB
Griz Addict said:
No I'm not wrong. I was at the game and it happened right in front of me. In person you couldn't even see Wings shoulder but, his helmet went right into the face mask of the Idaho player. It was the right call. You saying I'm wrong because you watched a bad angle camera view, is hilarious. Dumbf
Click to expand...
I saw the video's, one of which you didn't. I assume not one person who saw the videos would agree with you. Your view from the sideline had to have been blocked by the runner. And you must have lied about being 15 yards away. And I still haven't seen you say where you were sitting. You are the Dumbf. And wrong. And blind.
 
"A tackle where a tackler's helmet hits the runner's facemask from the side could be ruled targeting depending on the league, the force of the contact, and the specific actions of the tackler. It is not an automatic call, as different rules apply in the NFL versus the NCAA.

In college football (NCAA)
In college football, officials must confirm that one of two types of targeting has occurred for the penalty to be enforced. A forcible helmet-to-facemask hit from the side could potentially be considered targeting under the following conditions:
  • Leading with the crown of the helmet: The NCAA defines the crown as the circular area on the top of the helmet. A tackle using the top of the helmet for initial forcible contact to any part of an opponent's body is targeting, regardless of whether the opponent is defenseless.
  • Forcible contact to a defenseless player: If the runner is deemed "defenseless," a forcible hit to the head or neck area with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, or hand is targeting. The runner in motion is not typically considered defenseless, but if they are in the process of catching a pass or have given themselves up, this rule may apply.[FONT=Google Sans, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif] [None of those things applied. The runner was not defenseless and the runner already had caught the ball long ago.][/FONT]
The legality of the tackle depends on whether the tackler initiated the contact with the crown of their helmet or made forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player. Incidental helmet-to-helmet contact during a conventional tackle is generally not considered targeting. [Any contact with the [FONT=Google Sans, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif]facemark was not intentional, and would have been incidental. The initial contact was with the shoulder of the runner. And, again, the tackler was coming more from behind the runner, not across at him, and certainly not from the freontg of him.][/FONT]

In professional football (NFL)
The NFL does not use the term "targeting" but has rules against unnecessary roughness that cover similar actions. The following rules would be relevant to your scenario:
  • Use of helmet rule: It is a 15-yard penalty if a player lowers their head and makes forcible contact with their helmet against an opponent. The rule also penalizes using any part of the helmet or facemask to butt or make forcible contact to an opponent's head or neck area.
  • Defenseless player protections: The NFL also protects defenseless players from hits to the head or neck area. Unlike the NCAA, this protection applies even if the initial contact is to a lower part of the body, and it prohibits forcible contact from a player using their helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm.
  • "In the course of a conventional tackle": Like the NCAA, the NFL rule includes a note stating that these provisions do not prohibit incidental contact by the helmet or mask during a conventional tackle or block.
Key takeaways
For the play to be ruled targeting in college or a helmet foul in the NFL, the contact must be forcible and initiated illegally.


​


The Official Forum
https://forum.officiating.com › football › 105166-legal-t...
 
mthoopsfan said:
"A tackle where a tackler's helmet hits the runner's facemask from the side could be ruled targeting depending on the league, the force of the contact, and the specific actions of the tackler. It is not an automatic call, as different rules apply in the NFL versus the NCAA.

In college football (NCAA)
In college football, officials must confirm that one of two types of targeting has occurred for the penalty to be enforced. A forcible helmet-to-facemask hit from the side could potentially be considered targeting under the following conditions:
  • Leading with the crown of the helmet: The NCAA defines the crown as the circular area on the top of the helmet. A tackle using the top of the helmet for initial forcible contact to any part of an opponent's body is targeting, regardless of whether the opponent is defenseless.
  • Forcible contact to a defenseless player: If the runner is deemed "defenseless," a forcible hit to the head or neck area with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, or hand is targeting. The runner in motion is not typically considered defenseless, but if they are in the process of catching a pass or have given themselves up, this rule may apply.[FONT=Google Sans, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif] [None of those things applied. The runner was not defenseless and the runner already had caught the ball long ago.][/FONT]
The legality of the tackle depends on whether the tackler initiated the contact with the crown of their helmet or made forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player. Incidental helmet-to-helmet contact during a conventional tackle is generally not considered targeting. [Any contact with the [FONT=Google Sans, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif]facemark was not intentional, and would have been incidental. The initial contact was with the shoulder of the runner. And, again, the tackler was coming more from behind the runner, not across at him, and certainly not from the freontg of him.][/FONT]

In professional football (NFL)
The NFL does not use the term "targeting" but has rules against unnecessary roughness that cover similar actions. The following rules would be relevant to your scenario:
  • Use of helmet rule: It is a 15-yard penalty if a player lowers their head and makes forcible contact with their helmet against an opponent. The rule also penalizes using any part of the helmet or facemask to butt or make forcible contact to an opponent's head or neck area.
  • Defenseless player protections: The NFL also protects defenseless players from hits to the head or neck area. Unlike the NCAA, this protection applies even if the initial contact is to a lower part of the body, and it prohibits forcible contact from a player using their helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm.
  • "In the course of a conventional tackle": Like the NCAA, the NFL rule includes a note stating that these provisions do not prohibit incidental contact by the helmet or mask during a conventional tackle or block.
Key takeaways
For the play to be ruled targeting in college or a helmet foul in the NFL, the contact must be forcible and initiated illegally.



​


The Official Forum
https://forum.officiating.com › football › 105166-legal-t...
Click to expand...
What is the point of all of this?

The infraction was enforced because of a review initiated by the review team in the press box.

Montana appealed the ruling as they are entitled to do.

The Big Sky Conference recommended that the ruling be upheld and forwarded their findings and recommendations to the NCAA, as it was their duty to do (make a recommendation and forward all to the NCAA).

The NCAA conducted their official review and upheld the call made to enforce the call for targeting initiated by the booth review and declared the player ineligible for the first half of the next game.

Appeal complete. Penalty enforced. Life goes on.
 
Griz in Texas said:
What is the point of all of this?

The infraction was enforced because of a review initiated by the review team in the press box.

Montana appealed the ruling as they are entitled to do.

The Big Sky Conference recommended that the ruling be upheld and forwarded their findings and recommendations to the NCAA, as it was their duty to do (make a recommendation and forward all to the NCAA).

The NCAA conducted their official review and upheld the call made to enforce the call for targeting initiated by the booth review and declared the player ineligible for the first half of the next game.

Appeal complete. Penalty enforced. Life goes on.
Click to expand...
The point is that a bunch of us egriz fans are right, and the ncaa and refs were wrong. As Bobby says, targeting calls almost never get reversed. That is the point. Why do you keep asking? This is a football message board. This is what we do. Are you new to social media?

Life may go on, but so does discussion. If you don't want to learn anything about the rule or the play or whatever, don't look. And don't make comments like this.
 
I watched the video very closely many times, in slow motion. The receiver, in anticipation of the hit, hunches down a bit and lowers his head which puts it in line with the head of Wing. Had the receiver stayed erect, Wings head would have hit the right shoulder pad of the ball carrier. Not sure what Wing could or should have done differently. It was incidental contact.
 
Grisly Fan said:
I watched the video very closely many times, in slow motion. The receiver, in anticipation of the hit, hunches down a bit and lowers his head which puts it in line with the head of Wing. Had the receiver stayed erect, Wings head would have hit the right shoulder pad of the ball carrier. Not sure what Wing could or should have done differently. It was incidental contact.
Click to expand...
There's a better view that some of us saw too. Not targeting. Runner wasn't defenseless. The defender didn't lead with the crown of his helmet. The runner was going full speed, mainly in the direction away from the defender although the runner did veer towards the defender a bit in his last few steps. There was another defender coming at the runner, from more in front of the runner, but he doesn't even make contact with the runner after Wing's tackle and contact pushes the runner towards the sideline a bit and away from Wing and out of the path of the second defender. Wing's tackle from the side on mostly the shoulder of the runner is what knocks the runner towards the sideline and down, not any minor secondary contact of Wing's helmet to the facemark of the runner. That's my view, and I'm sticking to it.
 
mthoopsfan said:
The point is that a bunch of us egriz fans are right, and the ncaa and refs were wrong. As Bobby says, targeting calls almost never get reversed. That is the point. Why do you keep asking? This is a football message board. This is what we do. Are you new to social media?

Life may go on, but so does discussion. If you don't want to learn anything about the rule or the play or whatever, don't look. And don't make comments like this.
Click to expand...
Is this a threat? Come on man, this is a dead issue, don't beat it to death. You aren't right, obviously, it was a bad angle on the television and you are wrong.

If you have the damning video that proves otherwise, post the link. I was with the first picture we had from TV, but this isn't some grassy knoll conspiracy theory.

You aren't changing anything, you only want to argue with everyone that says it's over. The appeal isn't going to the supreme court, it's over. Don't be an ONG, if you just want to argue, take up the position the world is flat. It isn't any different than what you are saying here and you don't intimidate anyone here with feeble threats. I will comment on stupid points like yours when I want.
 
Griz in Texas said:
Is this a threat? Come on man, this is a dead issue, don't beat it to death. You aren't right, obviously, it was a bad angle on the television and you are wrong.

If you have the damning video that proves otherwise, post the link. I was with the first picture we had from TV, but this isn't some grassy knoll conspiracy theory.

You aren't changing anything, you only want to argue with everyone that says it's over. The appeal isn't going to the supreme court, it's over. Don't be an ONG, if you just want to argue, take up the position the world is flat. It isn't any different than what you are saying here and you don't intimidate anyone here with feeble threats. I will comment on stupid points like yours when I want.
Click to expand...
A threat? What are you talking about? Why don't you just be quiet; you've said enough and don't know what you're talking about. I saw various angles that the team has, and I know what the coaches think. Do you you? Did you see the team video's? Then, you obviously don't have all the info

I would be happy to argue with you over anything including football. You obviously don't know football, are not connected very well to Griz football, and are being a jerk. And I. will comment on your stupid posts. None of my posts on this subject are stupid. They are informed. I also talked to players about the call. Did you?
 
AnotherGrizFan said:
So, the officials and every other entity who reviewed the call are wrong because you say so? Interesting.
Click to expand...
What "entity" reviewed this? Officials almost always don't overturn targeting. It's just the way it is. Ask any college football coach. Yes, I am right on this one. I played college football, and I bet that none of the others involved in the review did. You obviously didn't play football. I saw the play from the stands. I've looked at the tv coverage of the play multiple times. I saw the addition video that the team has. I know what the coaches think. I know what some players think. I know what a number of the people who saw the team video's think. And, again, I played college football and played d-back. What are your credentials on this? Let's compare.
 
Last edited:
mthoopsfan said:
A threat? What are you talking about? Why don't you just be quiet; you've said enough and don't know what you're talking about. I saw various angles that the team has, and I know what the coaches think. Do you you? Did you see the team video's? Then, you obviously don't have all the info

I would be happy to argue with you over anything including football. You obviously don't know football, are not connected very well to Griz football, and are being a jerk. And I. will comment on your stupid posts. None of my posts on this subject are stupid. They are informed. I also talked to players about the call. Did you?
Click to expand...
I don't need to be quiet because your delusional ego is hurt by logic. POST WHAT YOU'VE SEEN! SHOW THE REST OF US WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING.

It's over either way, the ruling has been made, so it's you that needs to shut up and join mainstream America.

I don't need to see any more videos, the ruling is in, it's over, so good for you, you saw some opposing angles. Did you see the angle that was looked at to make the call and uphold it? You are always telling people they know nothing about football, but apparently it is you that is lacking knowledge. I never called you stupid, but you will probably find a lot of people on here that will.

Good for you for talking to players. What angle of view did they have on it? You don't know anything about what the video was that was looked at and if you want to play the who you know and talk to, we can go all day long on that, but I don't worry about calling up who I know on something that is a dead issue. IF it makes you feel important to keep going on an issue that is dead, have at it. At the end of the day, the definition of crazy is repeating the same action and expecting a different result.

If you keep arguing that the call is going to be reversed, I think you meet the criteria, but again, carry on.
 
Griz in Texas said:
I don't need to be quiet because your delusional ego is hurt by logic. POST WHAT YOU'VE SEEN! SHOW THE REST OF US WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING.

It's over either way, the ruling has been made, so it's you that needs to shut up and join mainstream America.

I don't need to see any more videos, the ruling is in, it's over, so good for you, you saw some opposing angles. Did you see the angle that was looked at to make the call and uphold it? You are always telling people they know nothing about football, but apparently it is you that is lacking knowledge. I never called you stupid, but you will probably find a lot of people on here that will.

Good for you for talking to players. What angle of view did they have on it? You don't know anything about what the video was that was looked at and if you want to play the who you know and talk to, we can go all day long on that, but I don't worry about calling up who I know on something that is a dead issue. IF it makes you feel important to keep going on an issue that is dead, have at it. At the end of the day, the definition of crazy is repeating the same action and expecting a different result.

If you keep arguing that the call is going to be reversed, I think you meet the criteria, but again, carry on.
Click to expand...
You are a total idiot. Learn the game and get closer to the program if you want to know what happened. No one is trying to get the call changed, not even Bobby. We are having a discussion. If facts and discussion offend you, go find your safe space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top