Proposed changes to "targeting"...
I've been thinking about targeting and how it's called and often miscalled, even with benefit of replay. It seems to me many have been missing the fact that things are generally moving pretty fast on a football field. In my view, the video Brian posted of Kiel being targeted is nowhere near as obvious as he posits. It's clear the defender initially wants to tackle the quarterback. He then adjusts his plan to just lay a hit on the quarterback before he is able to slide to the ground (I'd assume both to deliver a blow and to save forward progress). Whether he is actually going for the head is really tough to say. Both bodies are moving in 3 dimensions over the course of less than .5 sec. This is exactly why I thought the Bolden call against MSU was awful and why the play in which Rudock was knocked out against Minny was close.
Alternatively, the other hit on Rudock (along the sideline) by Minny was CLEARLY targeting, including using the crown of the helmet. So was last year's Minny hit on Morris and the open field blindside hit by Rutgers a couple weeks ago.
I would propose 3 things to improve the system:
1) penalize leading with the crown of the helmet in any open field situation.
2) during replay review evaluate whether the vertical plane of the victim's head is constant or near constant. If it is and there's helmet to helmet there's no question as to the defender's intentions
3) Figure out a way to allow a qb to slide to safety without allowing him additional yardage during his slide. Both Rudock and Kiel waited until the last second to go down and neither's knee was down when they got hit. The defender has to be able to limit the progress of the qb and hitting him is the only way to do so. There should be an expansion of the NFL rule requiring that defenders pull up immediately when the slide is being initiated, but also placing the ball down at that spot, not as far forward as the qb can jump. (I have a similar problem with guys tiptoeing the sideline absolutely as far as they can and then the defender taking a 15 yd penalty for delivering a hit as the runner's foot touches outside the boundary).
November 17th, 2015 at 3:12 PM ^
The rule isn't as bad as the enforcement. The refs need an inservice.
I think they need to gather video reply of all of the reversed, upheld, and should have been called targeting plays in the Big Ten this year, and make all of the refs take a simple class where they are told... this is targeting. this is not targeting.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:14 PM ^
Rudock (when he was forced to leave the game) was obvious targeting?
November 17th, 2015 at 3:50 PM ^
It wasn't obvious, but targeting was the correct call. The NCAA rulebook states, "when in question, it is a foul."
November 17th, 2015 at 5:07 PM ^
and while many have pointed to the logistical problems associated with the NHL's "they're looking at it in Toronto" approach, I do think that the college game would benefit from what the NHL Dept of Player Safety does after the fact in putting out videos that show exactly what caused the penalty/disqualification. The more refs/players/coaches see that, the more consistently the rule can be enforced and (hopefully) the less likely the behavior becomes.
November 17th, 2015 at 5:58 PM ^
Refereeing is terrible across the board this year. We tend to think it's just a "Big Ten problem," but it really has been bad everywhere else, too. From fans to players to coaches, all anyone really wants is consistent calls.
Not only is targeting being called inconsistently, late hits seem to be ignored by refs with regularity. The obvious non-foul when Rudock was hit by two Indiana defenders was bad enough, but there were countless late hits out of bounds on Michigan players that weren't called. Possibly worse: why does it seem like everyone who scores a touchdown have to absorb a hit after he has already scored?
It's back to what a lot of people are saying this year: enforce the rules like the rulebook says and enforce them the same for everyone.
November 17th, 2015 at 8:03 PM ^
November 18th, 2015 at 9:42 AM ^
What's up with the slide rule? There is no slide rule in college football.
Sliding in college, unlike the NFL, doe NOT make you a defenseless player and provides zero protection.
College QBs need to slide not at all.
"The rules of college football define nine defenseless players-from a punt returner awaiting a kick to a player who has been ruled down. A quarterback in the process of sliding isn't one of them. In fact, making contact with the quarterback's head in that situation is often perfectly legal as long as the defender doesn't lead with the crown of his helmet."
November 17th, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^
I get that all penalty calls are subjective. But the issue (IMHO) rests with the replay judge -- who CANNOT miss this call. Like TD's, they all need to be reviewed. They just need better refs to gauge intent.
On this basis, the Bolden call was reprehensible.
November 17th, 2015 at 4:47 PM ^
Agree completely. How a replay official can get that call wrong is beyond me. I also think the replay official should be able to call for a targeting review even if an on field official missed the call. Even though they can rescind the ejection and rescind the penalty if they think nothing happened, it is clear that the refs aren't throwing them when there is a shadow of a doubt and letting the replay official adjudicate it, so let the guy upstairs buzz the official before the next snap if he thinks he should review it. But to do that, you need competent replay officials.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:16 PM ^
I don't think it's the rule at the heart of the problem. I certainly understand it and it's intentions so I am supportive overall. They need to find a way to upgrade the enforcement which has been simply laughable to this point.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^
Officiating has become a clown show. They can take all sorts of classes and receive step-by-step instruction on how they want targeting called... but they'll still fuck it up.
They'll continue to fuck it up until they are held responsible for calling a bad game.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:33 PM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 5:28 PM ^
Right now, B1G officials make around $3k-$4k for 60 minutes of play. So that's $35k-$40k for a season of officiating. In my opinion, not the amount of money that will entice someone to work hard at their craft and strive for greatness.
I think they need to incentivize quality officiating. Give them their normal $35k-$40k for officiating games, but then allow teams to review the officials after each game. These reviews can be combined to create an aggregate "score" for each official at the end of the season so that they are judged over the entirety of the season. Give bonuses to officials based on performance review.
November 17th, 2015 at 5:34 PM ^
Where did you get those numbers from?
November 17th, 2015 at 5:43 PM ^
There is a NYT article from March 2014 with these numbers. I also know an official who has done MAC games and while I never asked how much he made, he has said that they are responsible for their own travel. So it's not exactly a lucrative job.
November 18th, 2015 at 12:00 AM ^
I saw that article and it says that an NCAA official can make up to $3000. I know a Big Ten official and they don't make close to that much. Also, they do have to pay for travel. I know this makes your point more valid, but you were just pulling numbers out of the air.
This is why I don't get why people are so critical of the referees. They (I suppose I should say most) aren't doing this for the money; they are doing this to get involved in the sport. Yes, they make mistakes. Yes, they should work at getting better (and they do). Like it or not, these are the best referees available outside of NFL referees and there is not a good way to fast track guys to replace other officials.
Your idea about reviews and rewards is effectively already implemented. Coaches do send in reviews and the top-rated officials get assigned postseason games, giving them extra money.
November 18th, 2015 at 9:48 AM ^
Your idea about reviews and rewards is effectively already implemented.
It may already be implemented - but it's obviously NOT implemented effectively.
Like almost anything else, this is a problem easily solvable with cash. The P5 conferences have MORE than enough money to steal referees from the NFL if they choose.
Raise the pay from $3K per game to $300,000 per year - the officiating will improve immensely.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:17 PM ^
Does the Big Ten have any kind of review process AFTER the game? They should... so they can overturn poor targeting calls, and maybe even enforce targeting hits that weren't called.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:21 PM ^
Hell no. They don't try to enforce targeting because they actually care about the safety of the players. It's merely to create the illusion that they care about player safety. It's like TSA who are there to give you a sense of security.
I've seen WAY too many players speared in the head this year go uncalled and OVERTURNED to believe the NCAA cares about player safety.
November 17th, 2015 at 4:10 PM ^
I think the review process begins and ends with the replay reviewer; who SHOULD be in a position to make the correct call every time.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:21 PM ^
They couldn't organize a pissing contest in a brewery. What incompetence.
November 17th, 2015 at 4:10 PM ^
Nice analogy +1
November 17th, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
Or is that a parable -- I always forget.
November 17th, 2015 at 5:25 PM ^
I think it's a fable.
November 17th, 2015 at 5:34 PM ^
regardless of what it is, I think it would be difficult to organize any sort of contest at a brewery -- all the drunk people are hard to shepard
November 17th, 2015 at 3:24 PM ^
Perhaps there should be two rules, each with different penalties attached: one for incidental helmet-leading helmet to helmet contact, which serves to deter dangerous plays but carriers a lighter penalty, and a second rule for conduct deemed, after review, to be intentional targeting, which carries a stiffer penalty.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:36 PM ^
you go. Targeting should not be called on the field only to potentially get "reversed" by the booth which also reverses the penalty. It is backwards. The penalty for unnecessary roughness is essentially a judgment call, and can still be called without reference to targeting. It should not be reversible. That is what made me angry during the Rutgers game. They reversed the "targeting," OK, whatever. However, the official on the field still made a determination that a penalty of unnecessary roughness had occurred and I don't think that should be reversible.
When a player is going down the sideline and he is hit late out of bounds, it is not always because he is actually out of bounds, it is because the hit was unnecessary given the circumstances that were obvious to all involved and it cannot be reversed because the runner was still dragging a foot in bounds. The same should apply to unnecessary roughness in the targeting sense. The call should stand no matter what and the booth should determine targeting.
There should also be a targeting "1" and a targeting "2." One is ejectable, the other is given to a player and two targeting "1" calls should result in the ejection or suspension, not one. The James Ross hit earlier this year would be akin to a targeting "1" where he actually tried to abort the hit after he started and there was clearly no intent to injure.
November 17th, 2015 at 8:50 PM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 3:26 PM ^
yes, the refs on the field are going to make mistakes since the game is moving so fast. i think that's understandable and also the reason why every targeting call is reviewed. the major issue is the replay guys (and it's not just targeting they f up every week). it's unbelievable how many calls they get wrong. i think THEY are the ones this stuff falls on. they should be held accountable and fired if they can't do the job.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:35 PM ^
My initial point is that the action is fast for the defensive player as well as the ref. Brian has pointed out 2 plays he thought was obvious targeting (the Rudock slide hit and the Kiel hit). I don't see either as obvious as I can't begin to tell if the defender is trying to hit the QB in the head. I certainly didn't think Bolden was trying to hit Cook in the head 4 weeks ago.
Agreed, the refs have been awful this year, but I'm pointing out a couple hits here where everyone is shouting "Targeting!" "Refs suck!" where I think I agree with the refs (or at least can't tell even with benefit of slow motion).
November 17th, 2015 at 3:27 PM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 3:39 PM ^
and teh NFL's rule allows forward progress to wherever the QB first contacts the ground (knee, hip etc).
November 17th, 2015 at 3:45 PM ^
Well, then that would be another change I would make.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:49 PM ^
at the end of my too long post.
November 17th, 2015 at 4:05 PM ^
"As for the part about the qb sliding, I believe the ball is placed where he starts his slide. That is designed to not give advantage to a qb due to the protection afforded to him. If someone hits a qb after the slide begins, it should be a penalty."
In college - there is no protection afforded a sliding QB.
In college you aren't down until you're "down" - NCAA rule 4.1.3.b - A live ball becomes dead when any part of the ball carrier's body, except hand or foot, touches the ground.
So until a part of the body touches - it doesn't matter whether he's running, diving, or sliding.... he is not a protected of "defenseless" player.
College QBs should NOT slide. It does not provide any protection in college ball, and is actually riskier.
November 17th, 2015 at 4:13 PM ^
"and is actually riskier"
Thank you! even if it was a penalty (called and enforced correctly regularly), I would rather keep my QB healthy than pick up 15 yards on a PF penalty. There's absolutely no way to protect yourself while sliding.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:43 PM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 3:46 PM ^
QB's take advantage of sliding by basically eeking out every last possible yard and then right as a defender is about to hit them they slide. That really isn't how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to give yourself up more than 1 microsecond before contact.
Same thing with OOB. If you are running down the sidelines and duck OOB 1 picosecond before contact, well then the contact is still warranted.
I'm all for player safety, but the idea that defenders have to pull up on players who are still LIVE ballcarriers is ridiculous. If they haven't given themselves up before the defender is within a foot or two of contact, then too bad--it's too late.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:52 PM ^
in thing now for quarterbacks to make the first small movement toward a slide and get the defender to relax and then to keep running. I thought that Rudock did that around mid-field during his epic Threet-like explosion against Indiana but it turns out he just has some moves.
November 17th, 2015 at 5:26 PM ^
I agree. I also hate that a ballcarrier can act like they are going out of bounds and then lay out the defender after they have already stopped. That should be an unnecessary roughness penalty on the offense.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:48 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 17th, 2015 at 4:04 PM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 8:22 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 17th, 2015 at 3:49 PM ^
The first thing that needs changed is the ejection. I say eliminate that for a first-time offender. Call it a 15- or even 20-yard penalty and give an automatic first down. For second time offenders, same thing, but THEN eject the player. The current rule sucks.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:56 PM ^
I have seen this year, is that when targeting is reversed; no penalty at all is given. The targeting call on the punt in the Minnesota game was an obvious block in the back. Instead of us getting the benefit of a 15 yard penalty, Minnesota got a 65 yard play as a direct result of the block in the back. That is an 80 yard swing on a bad call and led to a score.
November 18th, 2015 at 9:51 AM ^
I have seen this year, is that when targeting is reversed; no penalty at all is given.
Yes - because you can't assess multiple penalties. They can't call targeting AND a block in the back.
If they would have called it a block in the back - it would have been assessed. If they call it targeting and it gets reversed on replay, they cannot then assess another penalty.
November 17th, 2015 at 3:59 PM ^
I think that when the flag is thrown and penalty announced that the penalty should stay. If it is targeting then it could be reviewed for an ejection or not but the penalty should stay regardless of the outcome of the review.
I like the idea of flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 as in basketball. Clear targeting could be a flagrant 2 and ejection while iffy targeting would require 2 before an ejection.
As far as QB slides, it really is a judgement call that should be pretty easy to make. The moment a QB indicates a slide the ball should be placed. If a defender initiates contact after the slide it should be a 15yd penalty.
I don't know what to do about fake slides. Rudock had one on his first long run. He almost slid then saw that it was blocked and kept going.
November 17th, 2015 at 4:32 PM ^
basically you have a kill a dude to get this penalty a lot of times. There was a direct helmet hit (no question targeting) in the Baylor-Oklahoma game with no call, and Anu Solomon got a concussion the Arizona-Utah game with no call. This is the most subjective call I've seen outside of block/charge in basketball.
Solomon hit:
November 17th, 2015 at 4:56 PM ^
How do you get anything from this vine? I'd need a better video that's zoomed in or slowed down to judge what happened there.
November 17th, 2015 at 4:49 PM ^
Again, the qb is going down on his own trying to avoid a hit. What happens? he gets hit. I don't think the defender is trying for his head, just trying to hit him very hard and stop his progress. If he keeps running upright there's no way there's any helmet to helmet there. Sorry the dude got hurt, but the defender has to be able to limit progress.