"Targeting" ejection tonight; BSU Dillon Lukehart

Submitted by Section 1 on

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:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/playing+rules+administration/ncaa+rules+sports/football/playing+rules/memo_guidelines_on_targeting_fouls_03182013 

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.

 

HelloHeisman91

October 26th, 2013 at 12:19 AM ^

I would say as a guy that has been watching football for 25 years that this call is wrong half the time. In addition the idea that the 15 yard penalty still stand after a review that results in the player staying in the game in absolutely ridiculous. Great play kid, 15 yards and a first down!

Pit2047

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

RioThaN

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.

FGB

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.

kdhoffma

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.

Section 1

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.

BiSB

October 26th, 2013 at 7:42 AM ^

If you have two angles that don't show contact with the face ask, but one that does, what does that do? If you have one clear angle that shows contact (which this did), other angles that aren't as clear aren't especially relevant.

Section 1

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.

SWFLWolverine

October 26th, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^

For a reverse angle and could not find one. The way the receiver's head moves indicates contact with the decimal. It does not appear to be continuing in the same plane and trajectory as before the hit. The facemask appears to be forced back towards the face as the chin is coming down (this is where you see the size of the gap between collar and helmet increase) which, to me, would indicate contact to the head.

Haywood Jablomy

October 26th, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^

So, if I were to throw a medicine ball directly at your chest you believe that the space between your chin and chest (collar area) would remain constant? This would only be possible if you had a steel bar up your rear end running up to the top of your head.

SC Wolverine

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.

Section 1

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.

MGoRob

October 26th, 2013 at 12:42 AM ^

I think the outrage should be that that play wasn't called a TD. Receiver looks like he too two steps and crossed the goal line with the ball in-hand. He gets hit (in the Endzone) and drops the ball as he's nocked dazed to the ground. I thought once you cross the line, the play is over. Much like if you reached over the goal line and then get the ball knocked out; the fumble doesn't count bc the play is dead.

BlueGoM

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.

 

Section 1

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.

maquih

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.

Red is Blue

October 26th, 2013 at 7:38 AM ^

The dude is in the endzone. There is no point in trying to tackle him. He went high to knock the ball out. If he doesn't knock the ball out, it doesn't matter whether he tackles him or not. Still could be considered unnecessarily dangerous, but your agreement seems off point to me.

ianscott1982

October 26th, 2013 at 3:29 AM ^

The NCAA should be embarrassed about the targeting rule. I mean, even when they replay it and seem that it wasn't targeting and the player won't get ejected, they still keep the penalty yard punishment. Why?

Haywood Jablomy

October 26th, 2013 at 6:46 AM ^

One idea is to have the players wear little belts with velcro flags on them. To "tackle" a player one must remove the flag. Each team would have different colored flags (other than yellow). I am still trying to come up with a name for this concept. I'm thinking, "something? Football". It was for a TD for crying out loud. Separate the ball from the man without targeting the head. Perfect.

BiSB

October 26th, 2013 at 7:49 AM ^

about "without targeting the head" that is he problem. He DID target the head, or at the very least the upper upper sternum. That's a dangerous hit. There's a serious leap between "please don't mash defenseless players in the upper torso" and "OMG NO ONE TOUCH ANYTHING."

UMgradMSUdad

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.

Haywood Jablomy

October 26th, 2013 at 7:21 AM ^

I respond better to suggestions not orders. Hence, my not using it to respond to this, dickhead approach even though I am now informed. Perhaps this works with your wife, boyfriend or neighborhood children? Your tag line is perfect, "tough guy".