Nebraska's Nate Gerry Penalty Proves It's Time to Tackle the Lawlessness of Targeting Calls

[Redux]

Again, I didn't agree with the call when it happened and I don't agree with it now. My main point all along is that I would rather see officials err on the side of safety and get it wrong than not.

I'm all for player safety, don't get me wrong. But there comes a point where officials have a bigger impact on the games outcome than they should.

[FrankWheeler]

Player safety and targeting is drilled into officials at every clinic and association meeting in the country and that's not going to change.

[Saunders]

Player safety and targeting is drilled into officials at every clinic and association meeting in the country and that's not going to change.

People are routinely taught things incorrectly every single day. That doesn't make it right.

[Redux]

Player safety and targeting is drilled into officials at every clinic and association meeting in the country and that's not going to change.

So why are so many of them calling it incorrectly?

[jsneb83]

Again, I didn't agree with the call when it happened and I don't agree with it now. My main point all along is that I would rather see officials err on the side of safety and get it wrong than not.

I agree that the officials, with as fast paced as the game is, should err on the side of safety. The problem is the replay needs indisputable evidence to determine that the player was not targeting, when I believe it should be the other way around. In my opinion, I believe it is easier to determine deliberate targeting than it is to determine that there was no targeting. I also think that only deliberate targeting (like launching into a player) should be grounds for an immediate ejection. For all other cases, I would be fine with keeping the 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty and the player gets a warning for his first offense and gets ejected after his second. I just think it is a little unfair to the defensive players that get ejected on one questionable targeting call.

[huskerfan2000]

Player safety and targeting is drilled into officials at every clinic and association meeting in the country and that's not going to change.

From reading your posts you seem to be arguing that you understand why it was called.. Well, there is no understanding as to why it was called. It was not targeting, It was not hitting a defenseless player, It was not helmet to helmet contact. It WAS 100% legal and proper form, though growing up I always put my head almost waist level when making a tackle. Blew up many a RB that thought he was going to run me over by doing that..

 

Error on the side of caution, disagree in this situation.. regardless, the issue was the replay didn't over turn the refs cautionary call

[Redux]

As the announcers even said "I don't know how you teach a guy to make a tackle anymore"

[Enhance]

 

Player safety and targeting is drilled into officials at every clinic and association meeting in the country and that's not going to change.

From reading your posts you seem to be arguing that you understand why it was called.. Well, there is no understanding as to why it was called. It was not targeting, It was not hitting a defenseless player, It was not helmet to helmet contact. It WAS 100% legal and proper form, though growing up I always put my head almost waist level when making a tackle. Blew up many a RB that thought he was going to run me over by doing that..

 

Error on the side of caution, disagree in this situation.. regardless, the issue was the replay didn't over turn the refs cautionary call

 

Bingo. In the moment, I can see how a referee may have thought it looked like targeting. Upon review, there's really no case for upholding the penalty.

[louisianared]

My main issue is that I've seen play where it looks like the guy is literally just trying to put a big hit on a player (and possibly injure him) and nothing happens but a player does everything correctly (like Nate Gerry) and gets ejected.

 

I'm all for player safety and I understand the rule but it needs to be looked at.

 

Maybe say that the flag can be waived off if the defensive player made every attempt to make a safe tackle but a high/helmet hit was unavoidable.

[quesadilla]

If the parameters for holding are so obvious why isn't it called consistently?

 

The parameters for targeting are spelled out in the rule book, they aren't vague. And if you go by the rulebook below, the UCLA call isn't completely crazy.

 

Article 3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

 

Article 4: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

 

Defenseless Player: A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless.

 

People need to get used to a different type of football.

As I understand it, this was the form of targeting called against Gerry and the replay official could only overturn based on the "head or neck area" aspect of the rule, not whether the player was in fact defenseless. And the bit about when in doubt means it's going to be called and it's up to replay to correct it. Fine

 

But if you watch the replay, the receiver catches the ball, plants, makes a step and then lowers himself to brace for impact. By doing that he was not a defenseless player under the definitions: "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."

 

The replay official can only overturn based on the head and neck contact, not whether the player was correctly judged to be defenseless. So, ironically, Gerry was called for hitting the head and neck area of a defenseless player but he only hit the head and neck because the player was no longer defenseless and had time to plant and crouch before impact. Otherwise, Gerry would have hit a defenseless player in the mid section and either not been called or would have been overturned. But since only the head and neck portion of the call can be reviewed the call had to stand.

 

Off topic, but I saw another example of a replay rule that should be adjusted in the Wisconsin-USC game last night. A WI touchdown was overturned because an official ruled that the runner stepped out of bounds, but, on replay, it appeared that he was well in bounds. The call couldn't be reviewed however because the play was blown dead by the official who blew the call. A similar call against a USC receiver however was overturned because the play was not blown dead.

 

Two bad calls that could not be overturned by replay, one of which clearly could have cost WI the game and the other resulted in the automatic ejection of a player. I like that replay is now part of the game but the NCAA clearly needs to spend some time adjusting the standards that apply to replay officials.

[Enhance]

My main issue is that I've seen play where it looks like the guy is literally just trying to put a big hit on a player (and possibly injure him) and nothing happens but a player does everything correctly (like Nate Gerry) and gets ejected.

 

I'm all for player safety and I understand the rule but it needs to be looked at.

 

Maybe say that the flag can be waived off if the defensive player made every attempt to make a safe tackle but a high/helmet hit was unavoidable.

I'm not sure what the exact rules are for what the official can or can't look at when reviewing a targeting call. There was some former referee talking about it during the game. Gerry's tackle would've certainly fallen in the "unavoidable" category, though. You would hope the referees were already able to make this determination for themselves, especially when we consider some of these targeting/helmet-to-helmet calls happen when the offensive player lowers their head or body in preparation for the hit.

[Touchdown Tommie]

FSU game...DB hits the WR with only his helmet and nothing is called....again, the NCAA needs to get this fixed!

 

I knew it was an issue, but after paying more attention after the Gerry BS it is unreal how inconsistent the officials are. How are coaches/kids suppose to know what and what not to do?!?!

[huskerfan2000]

FSU game...DB hits the WR with only his helmet and nothing is called....again, the NCAA needs to get this fixed!

 

I knew it was an issue, but after paying more attention after the Gerry BS it is unreal how inconsistent the officials are. How are coaches/kids suppose to know what and what not to do?!?!

yep, I saw that. his head was straight up and hit very clearly helmet to helmet. This was without a doubt leading with the helmet. NO CALL

[MichiganDad3]

My main issue is that I've seen play where it looks like the guy is literally just trying to put a big hit on a player (and possibly injure him) and nothing happens but a player does everything correctly (like Nate Gerry) and gets ejected.

 

I'm all for player safety and I understand the rule but it needs to be looked at.

 

Maybe say that the flag can be waived off if the defensive player made every attempt to make a safe tackle but a high/helmet hit was unavoidable.

I like this idea. With two players moving so fast, and one player trying to evade, it is impossible to avoid helmet to helmet contact, especially incidental contact.

[lo country]

 

FSU game...DB hits the WR with only his helmet and nothing is called....again, the NCAA needs to get this fixed!

 

I knew it was an issue, but after paying more attention after the Gerry BS it is unreal how inconsistent the officials are. How are coaches/kids suppose to know what and what not to do?!?!

yep, I saw that. his head was straight up and hit very clearly helmet to helmet. This was without a doubt leading with the helmet. NO CALL

 

Saw as well. Crown of helmet to facemask of defenseless receiver. Above shoulders, led with head and with forceful action..... no call....