Revisiting the Targeting Penalty - three plays, same contact, different result

[knapplc]

What this thread is not:

• "The refs/Big Ten are out to get Nebraska"
  
• 
  
• "We would have won the Minnesota game if we had gotten this call"
  

 

What this thread is:

• This rule needs to be looked at again, and enforcement needs to be overhauled. Because it's not working.
  

 

 

Three weeks ago in the Purdue game, Stanley Jean-Baptiste became the first Big Ten player ejected from a game under the NCAA's targeting rule for this hit:

 

 

Many of us thought it was a good tackle - separating the receiver from the ball. The refs disagreed, and the ejection was upheld. In the uproar that followed, Nebraska sports media's biggest buffoon, Mike'l Severe, cited Jean-Baptiste's form, saying that Stanley lowered his head and, since the crown of the helmet came into play, that's why Stanley was (and should have been) ejected:

 

@MikelSevere

Check out his form. pic.twitter.com/1rqoEoIYNU

 

 

 

 

The crown of Stanley's helmet hit the helmet of the Purdue WR and the WR's head snapped back, and that was the crux of the argument for upholding Stanley's ejection.

 

But that's not what the rule says, oddly enough:

 

"Rule 9-1-4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck areas of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. By rule, when in question, it is a foul."

 

But what does the head of Big Ten officiating say about this? How should players be tackling?

Bill Carollo, the Big Ten's coordinator of football officials, points to a different set of images that underscore the impact of the stricter penalties for targeting. These images show safe, sound tackling techniques that reduce the risk of head injuries for both ball carriers and defenders.

 

 

 

"They've lowered the target," Carollo said Tuesday on a conference call with reporters from ESPN.com and BTN.com. "They've done a better job coming in full speed, trying to make a play and separate the opponent from the ball. They see the numbers, they see what they hit, they try to wrap up. Even from the first week of the season, I've seen players adjusting, trying to get their head to the side, trying to get their head down."

 

LINK

 

Try to get your head to the side, that's how you avoid a penalty. But wait a second, isn't that what Stanley did in his tackle? Especially if you watch the gif, Stanley lines up his hit to the outside of the player, who comes in to the area of impact, and Stanley's attempt to hit him in the numbers, to get his head to the side, didn't go as planned.

 

Stanley couldn't be looking any more closely at the Purdue WR's numbers - that's about all he sees as he's dislodging the ball. And Stanley's head is most definitely down, as Mr. Carollo states it should be. And since their helmets touched, and Stanley initiated contact with his shoulder to the opponent's shoulder, he was ejected. As the rule states, "...when in question, it is a foul."

 

So head down, seeing the numbers, isn't the point. Mr. Carollo, unsurprisingly, isn't clear on the enforcement of this rule himself.

 

 

 

And that brings us to the flip side of the enforcement of this rule: The hits on Taylor Martinez in the Minnesota game. Let's look at this play:

 

 

What do we have here? We have contact by a defender on a defenseless player (Taylor was in the process of completing a throw), contact initiates between James Manuel's helmet, forearm, hand and shoulder at Taylor's head and neck area. The crown of Manuel's helmet hits Taylor in the head/face, snapping his head back.

 

The referee, Bill Lemonnier, not only has a good angle to see the hit, he's staring right at Taylor, observing and judging the hit. No penalty flag was thrown, and Manuel was not ejected. Manuel doesn't wrap up, he doesn't keep his head down, he doesn't hit Taylor around the numbers - in fact, he does everything Bill Carollo says you're not supposed to do in these types of hits.

 

But here's the funny thing - that wasn't even the first such hit on Martinez. Earlier in the game Minny defensive lineman Theiren Cockran hit a defenseless Martinez, again initiating contact with Taylor's head/shoulders with his helmet, forearm, hand and shoulder:

 

 

Again, no flag was thrown, no penalty was called, and no ejection. Either hit on Martinez was easily worse than Jean-Baptiste's hit in the Purdue game.

 

To this day, Friday, 11/1/13, there has been no discussion from the Big Ten offices or Mr. Carollo regarding these hits.

 

 

 

 

 

So what does that mean? What is this penalty actually about? Both hits against Martinez were in the pocket, as he was preparing to pass, or passing. Jean-Baptiste's hit, just like Ohio State Cornerback Bradley Roby's, occurred in the open field, against a receiver who had just caught a pass. Both Jean-Baptiste and Roby were ejected.

 

This rule does not stipulate that the "defenseless player" has to be a receiver catching a pass. In both instances (Jean-Baptiste's and Roby's) both receivers should have been equally as aware as Martinez that they were in someone's sights for a hit, and all three, Martinez and the two receivers, should have been prepared to take a hit - they're playing football, after all.

 

But don't take my word for that, take Kenny Bell's:

"They're just trashing the game. It's sad. It really is sad. You hit someone too hard now, you're going to get a penalty. You could be ejected. It's embarrassing."

 

 

 

Bell obviously is passionate about the subject, and protective of the game's integrity.

 

"We signed up to play football," he said. "We know exactly what we signed up to do. And for Stanley to get ejected over that (hit), it blows my mind. It's really disappointing."

 

LINK

 

I sincerely hope that the NCAA addresses this rule, soon. As Kenny so bluntly says, it's trashing the game. And it's all the more a joke because of the inequality of its enforcement.

[AgMarauder04]

Bullsheet rule. Worst rule in CFB. It's up to WAY too much subjectivity.

[Born N Bled Red]

Great work Knapplc, I would also like to see some discussion on the pass interference calls that were never called on Minnesota during the game, Quincy's first quarter should have been a td catch, the db was hugging him from the minute he crossed the goal line till the ball sailed over his head. Westercamp, was contacted before the ball got there on several occasions, and there were others as well. Could not believe what they were allowed to get away with. Also did Minny ever have a holding call called on them. 54 running plays and not a single hold... right.....

[GSG]

I seriously hope someone sent that clip from the Minnesota game to the Big Ten offices. What a frickin joke

[Born N Bled Red]

Also, damn Taylor took a beating in that game, I'd say Minny was definitely out to take him out. Those two hits, two face masks, two obvious hits out of bounds (also not called). He had a huge target on his back and the refs looked the other way all game. (facemasks being the exception)

[shyndy]

The real problem with this rule is that it requires the ref to establish intent which is not really possible. How do you know if a player is really targeting another player unles he says "how did you like my crown of the helmet" afterwards. Then it goes in to say if it is in question, it is a penalty. So, intent can't really be known, thus always in question and always a penalty

[iowahuskers]

I thought I understood this rule until this past weekend. I thought the call on SJB was bad but you could have made an argument either way if he should get ejected or not. But I really don't understand how the two hits on Martinez weren't called. In the picture the ref is literally staring at the play, that is absolutely terrible.

 

I don't know how they picked the flag up on when Martinez was hit out of bounds. Definitely seems like something they would call if they are trying to make football more safe. These rules are without question ruining football.

[Scratchtown]

I like the rule. You as a football player are not taught to hit that high in the first place in this sport. If you don't agree, then you haven't ever had to teach how to tackle with a High School Athletics Association looking over your shoulder for it.

 

You are never taught to hit any higher than the chest anyway. Bend your freaking knees and explode out up through the guy starting as low as the hips but no higher than the breast plate.

 

I can't fathom why people have such a beef with this rule when proper tackling isn't taught in a manner that warrants an ejection anyway.

 

However, I don't like the inconsistency of the rule. The play needs to be reviewed after the game, rather than in game. Then suspend them for 2 qtrs of the next game. That way you can spend longer than 30 seconds reviewing it and you can get the call right. Just my thoughts.

[MichiganDad3]

The rule is complete garbage. In general, the more rules you have, the bigger the chance the game is decided by the officials. Remove as many rules as possible, especially the subjective ones.

[iowahuskers]

I like the rule. You as a football player are not taught to hit that high in the first place in this sport. If you don't agree, then you haven't ever had to teach how to tackle with a High School Athletics Association looking over your shoulder for it.

 

You are never taught to hit any higher than the chest anyway. Bend your freaking knees and explode out up through the guy starting as low as the hips but no higher than the breast plate.

 

I can't fathom why people have such a beef with this rule when proper tackling isn't taught in a manner that warrants an ejection anyway.

 

However, I don't like the inconsistency of the rule. The play needs to be reviewed after the game, rather than in game. Then suspend them for 2 qtrs of the next game. That way you can spend longer than 30 seconds reviewing it and you can get the call right. Just my thoughts.

 

Making football safer is very important however if a player gets ejected and has to sit out because of it I think it's just not fair. I know people will just say that if you make a clean tackle in the first place you won't get ejected but personally when I played (granted only HS football) the only thing going through my mind as a DB going for a open field tackle is stopping the other guy no matter what. The rule about getting ejected is making players slow down and try to think about what they are doing and in turn can get them hurt by not going full speed.

 

I like your idea about reviewing it after the game, games are getting too long anyways. They should have a group of "experts" to determine all the possible ejections from the weekend, I think the NFL has something like this.

[shyndy]

Ejection is just so severe, you don't even get that for pinching someones nether regions or trying to twist their head off

[Danimal]

We got majorly homered by that f'ing crew. They missed on two clear hits to TM's dome and some obvious holding. Plus we didn't touch the ball near the goalline, that play for a Minn loss should've stood. Not excusing our performance but the refs may well have changed the outcome of that game.

[Born N Bled Red]

I, for one, do not like the after the game review idea. I know this happens to an extent already if the illegal hit happens in the 2nd half. But why should the next team an opponent plays benefit from hits made against our guys. If our guys are the ones put at risk as a result of the hit, our team should benefit from that player being ejected, not our opponent's next opponent. Also, if someone is intentionally hitting with intent to hurt during a game against us, we want that person to not be playing rather than subjecting our team to risk additional injury risk to our team, by leaving the culprit in the game. If ejection/ suspension is to be the penalty, it needs to happen immediately after the hit.

[HuskerNationNick]

I like the rule. You as a football player are not taught to hit that high in the first place in this sport. If you don't agree, then you haven't ever had to teach how to tackle with a High School Athletics Association looking over your shoulder for it.

I don't necessarily agree with this part. Sure, if you have a very knowledgeable coach, your taught these things, but the problem is, there is a majority of kids who are not taught the proper form, or technique, to tackle. This starts from little league, all the way to high school. I remember hearing a few defensive coordinators talking about this a while back about concussions and how to prevent them. They stated that they have to reteach kids when they come in on their forms, and how to properly tackle. When in pressure, or in the moment, you go back to old ways. There are kids in D1 who still don't get the concept of not hitting high on players. This happens every game, and is actually one of Nebraska's flaws. We seem to hit a guy high, rather than low. Poor technique, and its coming from our younger guys.

 

This is no excuse for having players hitting high, or helmet to helmet, but not all, or even most kids are taught properly how to tackle before they are in the collegiate level. This is why parents aren't allowing their kids to play football as a kid much more, because you have Tim's father, a guy with no experience coaching a team and teaching kids his way, not the right way.

[Hammerhead]

While I agree that it's vital for the safety of players on both sides of the ball that proper form tackling is taught, and leading with your helmet should be penalized, I don't necessarily think it warrants an ejection. If it's fully intentional, or it's a recurring issue with a particular player (see: every hit Brandon Meriweather has ever made), THEN maybe we can talk ejection, but not for one occurrence of it. Things happen so fast, for both the players and the officials, that I don't think there should be a distinction between garden variety unnecessary roughness and targeting.