"Targeting" ejection tonight; BSU Dillon Lukehart
This was the first "targeting" ejection that I have seen in real-time. I think that anytime a "targeting" penalty arises, the player in question is automatically going to be stained with a kind of prejudice, for all of the subsequent views on slow-mo replay.
I was shocked that this good football play resulted in a penalty and an ejection.
This article embeds a .gif of the play. Not very good video quality, but it's all there is right now; even this .gif might not survive. If anybody has better video, feel free to add.
http://fansided.com/2013/10/25/boise-states-dillon-lukehart-ejected-targeting-big-hit-gif/
The NCAA, rightly anticipating trouble with the targeting rule, issued a memo in March containing a bulletin on the targeting rule:
From the text of the bulletin:
KEY ELEMENTS
Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.
Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.
Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.
Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.
Examples (Rule 2-27-14):
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a 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.
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.
KEY INDICATORS
Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:
Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet
These indicate less risk of a foul:
Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders
Wrap-up tackle
Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact
Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play
So I'd have to agree that in the Lukehart play, the receiver was indeed a "defenseless player" by rule. But geeze, he's trying to catch a touchdown pass. Anyway, rules is rules.
But did Lukehart hit with the crown of his helmet? Absolutely not.
Did he lead with his helmet, forearm, fist, etc.? No.
Did he lower his head to "attack"? No. He moved his head to his own left side, to avoid head-to-head contact.
Did he "strike" the head or neck of the defenseless player? I think not. It looked like Lukehart's shoulder pads hitting the upper chest of the reciever.
Lukehart's feet do seem to have left the ground in the other video I saw, watching the game live.
In context, there was nothing dirty about this game or Lukehart's play that I saw. In real time, it looked worse than it was, with the scary split second when both players were on the ground motionless and one wondered whether they would get up. (Both players were uninjured and got up right away.) That same split second was when the ref made a "targeting" decision. (Note: the play was reviewed in the game by the replay officials and was "confirmed." The refs seemingly had no doubt.)
Anyway, I can understand differing opinions on this one. But my view is that it is either a bad call or a bad rule. Lukehart does not deserve the infamy of a suspension that will last into the the next game BSU plays.
October 26th, 2013 at 12:19 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 12:18 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 12:37 AM ^
Back and to the left.
Back and to the left.
Back and to the left.
October 26th, 2013 at 12:18 AM ^
Led with the shoulder which is good but he went too close to the facemask-neckish area and that by rule is an ejection, doesn't matter what he lead with. These days this is how the game is called, either adjust or get ejected. I don't necessarily love the rule but this is the world we live in and its probably not going to change
October 26th, 2013 at 12:23 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 4:54 PM ^
Hear this a lot, but the adjustment he would make would not put him at the knees. Just go for the ball and you're fine. IMO this play violated both the letter and spirit of the rule.
October 26th, 2013 at 12:35 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 12:40 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 8:33 AM ^
Led with the shoulder to the neck/face of a defenseless player. Not trying to tackle so much as take out. The rule is designed to stop exactly this type of play. You're exactly right - adjust or get ejected.
October 26th, 2013 at 12:31 AM ^
I just think defenses will have to get used to it, maybe before those were good manly plays, but if cutting the risk of having a player badly injured (offense or defense) with this rule means those hits are now illegal then so be it.... Just gotta be consistent, yesterday btw a player from MSU (NTMSU) got ejected for throwing punches in the pile, I was more shocked about the refs having the balls to eject him than for some of this targeting fouls.
October 26th, 2013 at 12:41 AM ^
hits him in the head/neck area, as the back of the receiver's helmet snaps upwards at the hit, clearly indicating the facemask was hit downward/into the face in the front.
This is open and shut ejection, I don't think there's much to dispute. If you want to say he didn't hit him in the head/neck area, then, well....I mean it's factually wrong but you can argue that.
The rule is the rule, and the rule is clearly designed to reduce head injuries, and I doubt you'd have a solid argument that it isn't doing just that. Sometimes societal values change. We view Roman gladiatorial fights, or even bare-knuckle boxing for 30 rounds, as barbaric and morally reprehensible. 50 years from now, people may think the same thing about football. Shit changes sometimes.
As for knee injuries, they will eventually legislate for that too, but if given a straight choice, every person would choose a lifetime of painful walking over deterioting brain condition that may kill you or make you suicidal before 50.
October 26th, 2013 at 1:00 AM ^
Agree 100%... from that angle the head of the reciever is clearly the first thing to move on impact from the defenders shoulder making it the principle point of contact. Unless there are other angles, it seems like the proper use of the rule.
October 26th, 2013 at 2:07 AM ^
Watching the game (there was a timeout for the replay official) they showed it repeatedly, from two or three angles.
From the opposite angle, it could be seen that the reciever's head snapped downward NOT because it was hit by Lukehart but rather because the reciever suddenly decelerated upon the impact to his chest. Like a person in a car wearing a seatbelt who suddenly decelerates in a crash video, with nothing hitting the head area.
October 26th, 2013 at 7:42 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 9:27 AM ^
There was a reverse-angle to this .gif, in which you could see Lukehart hit with his shoulder pads into the reciever's chest. This .gif did NOT show it clearly.
October 26th, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 12:06 PM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 7:50 PM ^
You are not having one of your better days today, are you? Perhaps you should take your earlier advice check your comprehension. Where did I say the space between the chin and chest should remain constant? It appears that you are just trying to be contrarian today so I'll let it go at that.
October 26th, 2013 at 10:52 AM ^
While it was not a dirty hit, it was targeting under the new rules. The NCAA has to do something to protect against head injuries and I think this is a good approach. No head shots, boys. There is it. That was a head shot, whatever the intention was.
October 26th, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
...are you making the determination that it was categorically "a head shot" based on your watching the .gif? Again, I wonder how many people are doing that in this thread. Did you watch the game?
I posted the .gif because that is all there was last night; this was not a game that I had any notion of recording. I hope/expect that someone did. And that we soon have a lot more video to review online.
I actually hope that BSU appeals the suspension, and that there is a much more detailed analysis. It might not get overturned; I don't know. But I do know that I am very uncomfortable, putting myself in Dillon Lukehart's position. He is there to stop BYU from scoring touchdowns. It's football. He could have tried to level a true "head shot." But he didn't even do that. He put his shoulder pads into where the ball was, or pretty damn close.
October 26th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 12:42 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 1:08 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 12:43 AM ^
This could all be avoided if the NCAA would just stop allowing defensive players on the field!
October 26th, 2013 at 3:48 AM ^
We didn't have any last week. Does that count?
October 26th, 2013 at 12:59 AM ^
""referees weren’t having it as the tossed Lukehart and maintained their ruling after reviewing it on the replay."
They called it even after the review, dude.
It's 2013 and we know much more about the long term effects of concussions. Time to start dealing with it.
October 26th, 2013 at 1:52 AM ^
I watched the game. I saw the reivew. And the ruling. Live. Like I said:
(Note: the play was reviewed in the game by the replay officials and was "confirmed." The refs seemingly had no doubt.)
Uh, dude.
October 26th, 2013 at 1:08 AM ^
Just formwise it's a bad tackle. Doesn't uses his arms to wrap up, doesn't get low. I don't understand anybody saying it's a good football play -- it's very bad tackling technique and he got lucky to hit the receiver in the head and give him a concussion leading to the drop. 9 times out of 10, at least against a quality receiver, the receiver would have bounced off the tackle attempt and kept running if this was in between the endzones. (cf. Gallon versus Notre Dame)
I happen to think it is a good example of targeting, there's no reason why he would aim at the receiver so high and it's unnecessarily dangerous. His coaches didn't teach him to tackle like that -- the only way that tackle ever works is if you land a square shot to the head and cause a concussion. This is a perfect example of the rule working well.
October 26th, 2013 at 1:11 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 1:56 AM ^
There was no concussion. The BYU reciever got up and continued to play.
Is this Friday night drunk-posting?
October 26th, 2013 at 2:24 AM ^
On the wrong side of history "since 2009".
October 26th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^
...yelling, "Stop!"
October 26th, 2013 at 7:38 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 2:28 AM ^
I'm so confused right now. Maybe Section 1 should deconstruct what may have happened along the way for my brain to betray me like this.
October 26th, 2013 at 3:29 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 3:50 AM ^
If this guy got thrown out, thne Clowney would have certainly been thrown out last season.
October 26th, 2013 at 6:46 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 7:49 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 1:23 PM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 6:45 AM ^
The hit on Gardner in the endzone by the Illinois player seemed more egregious to me. There was a reason for the Lukehart hit: to jar the ball loose (which worked--and if I understand some of the comments correctly, it was not ruled a TD which looks like the right call to me--the clip in the link shows the player was juggling the ball just before he was hit). It was a good, clean, hard play to prevent a TD, and no reason to penalize or eject him.
There was no reason whatsoever for the hit on Gardner, and it was deserving of the 15 yard penalty.
October 26th, 2013 at 10:16 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 6:53 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 6:55 AM ^
Use it.
October 26th, 2013 at 7:39 AM ^
You're just a big teddy bear and you know it.
October 26th, 2013 at 7:40 AM ^
It was a punishment from the mods. I think it's funny, so I kept it.
October 26th, 2013 at 7:21 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 7:46 AM ^
October 26th, 2013 at 8:45 AM ^