**** the refs

[Statefan10]

Disagree that it is clear.

Forcible contact with the crown - I disagree that's the case. Looks like the top of the facemask and area just above the facemask. Not the crown. Again, we have to allow the defender to tackle in as safe a manner as is reasonable, which is head inline or just slightly more upright than inline while body being at an angle that a sound tackle needs to be.

Forcible contact to the head and neck on a defenseless player - he's a ball carrier so not considered defenseless.

General forcible contact to the head and neck area - If Dekkers is not being tackled and going down, the point of the tackle is the midsection, and is fine.

Launch - he doesn't launch. His right foot is still on the ground when he goes into a tackle.

A crouch with an upward launch to hit the head - not the case here.

I guess we may have to agree to disagree here. From this view slowed down it looks like the defender makes helmet to helmet contact with Dekkers, with his crown making contact first and then facemask sliding through at the end as his helmet moves to the side. I also think you could make a case that Dekker’s is defenseless considering he’s being tackled by another defender and was an inch from his knee being on the ground.

 

[Statefan10]

And I wish I could find a video from the Baylor - WVU 4th quarter. Baylor runs a screen to #8. He catches it and uses his crown as a weapon into the WVU defender. It was probably the most egregious targeting I've ever seen. Obviously no flag, nor is there any discussion about what a horrible play it was. A guy has plenty of time to make a conscious decision to do the most dangerous thing in the game, and we have zero mention by the league, the coaches, the announcers. Yet, then we have some targeting calls or non-targeting calls with slow-mo video that is a tenth or a couple tenths of a second where part of a tacklers helmet hits part a ball carriers helmet as he's being taken down from behind as if these guys are characters in a Marvel movie or the Matrix.

Saw that play and again, insane there was no targeting.

 

[Urbandale2013]

I just disagree with people that think the hit was anything that SHOULD be illegal. I think it's questionable whether it is as the rule is currently written, but that's only because it's a stupidly written rule.

I really don't want to compare it to the Freyler targeting, because that was ridiculous. If that's our comparison there are plays by most players every game, both sides of the ball that are more dangerous.

Think about this in real time. Defender goes in to tackle a ball carrier. When he goes into the tackle, the runner is still not down. Even if he's starting to go down, we're talking about 1/100ths of seconds. He goes in on a tackle that would've been low on a runner not going down.

He doesn't launch. His right foot is still on the ground.

You have to tackle through guys. When you unload into them you are going to be in a forward leaning angle. That means a "heads up" tackle isn't with your face perpendicular to the ground, unless you want your neck injured. In a perfect world it's slightly more upright than inline with the body like it is here, but if you are driving into a guy and your head remains inline with your body (vs. looking downward) that needs to be good enough.

Forcible contact to the head and neck area - it's mostly a facemask and area just above the facemask hitting Dekkers part on the side of the helmet and part of the shoulder pad. Mind you after the runner is being dragged down from behind. If you think a defender is good enough in real time to realize from the time he starts to go into a tackle that Dekkers is now being tackled and taken and can adjust to avoid or hit Dekkers helmet, you're crazy.

The problem is there are a lot of targeting calls that are simply dumb luck based on what happens to the ball carrier.

Football is dangerous. If a defender makes a largely sound move to make a tackle at the point he starts the process it shouldn't be a penalty, especially while we have dozens of instances every game where receivers catch passes and go down with their heads REALLY down, and with ball carriers literally leading with the crown as a weapon. This is the problem. You can't teach avoiding targeting as a defender because you can do everything right and still get called.

This was not a perfect hit, but from the point he goes into the tackle, the decision and form are not egregious by any means. If Dekkers isn't getting taken down at the same time it's just a hit around the thigh area and we play on, no questions asked.

It's a stupid rule. Get rid of it. Implement the old leading with the crown of the helmet/spearing rule and actually enforce it both sides of the ball.

I don’t think anyone has argued it was a dirty play. There wasn’t a ton he could have done differently to make it better but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a penalty. Often times a face mask is unintentional but it is still a penalty.

In this case the play is clearly targeting IMO and the exact type of play they are trying to prevent. I think it hit every aspect of the penalty. Was Dekkers a defenseless player in this situation? I would definitely say yes but can see an argument against it if you really wanted to. If you said yes it is any contact to the head or neck area and indisputably this was. If you don’t then we can ask was he leading with the crown of his helmet and again I think the answer is clearly yes. So by the current rules you have to make some pretty exceptional judgements to say it was not targeting.

Now whether it should be illegal or not is another question but again I think this is exactly the type of play they have to try and eliminate. It is a dangerous play anyway you put it. Now do I think that someone should be ejected for it absolutely not but that is a different discussion than if it should be illegal.

 

[AuH2O]

I guess we may have to agree to disagree here. From this view slowed down it looks like the defender makes helmet to helmet contact with Dekkers, with his crown making contact first and then facemask sliding through at the end as his helmet moves to the side. I also think you could make a case that Dekker’s is defenseless considering he’s being tackled by another defender and was an inch from his knee being on the ground.

I think the point is there are a few factors for targeting, and only one is in play, which is the crown of the helmet, and that isn't clear. If you are going to kick a kid out of a game and have a 15 yard penalty, you better be damn sure. And not to mention, if it is targeting, I'm not sure there's much to be taught here in the name of safety, because his head position is better than a good majority of ball carriers, blockers and tacklers in most games.

I'm pretty sure he would not be considered a defenseless player. The only time a ball carrier might be considered defenseless is if forward progress has been stopped, but I don't think that ever gets called that and not a late hit.

I'd say - letter of the law - you can make an argument, though I don't think it's clear enough to pull the trigger on such a huge penalty. If that's the spirit of the law, then just end the sport, because there are way more dangerous actions all the time in the game, and there's nothing you are going to use on this as a teaching point in terms of safety.

 

[AuH2O]

I don’t think anyone has argued it was a dirty play. There wasn’t a ton he could have done differently to make it better but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a penalty. Often times a face mask is unintentional but it is still a penalty.

In this case the play is clearly targeting IMO and the exact type of play they are trying to prevent. I think it hit every aspect of the penalty. Was Dekkers a defenseless player in this situation? I would definitely say yes but can see an argument against it if you really wanted to. If you said yes it is any contact to the head or neck area and indisputably this was. If you don’t then we can ask was he leading with the crown of his helmet and again I think the answer is clearly yes. So by the current rules you have to make some pretty exceptional judgements to say it was not targeting.

Now whether it should be illegal or not is another question but again I think this is exactly the type of play they have to try and eliminate. It is a dangerous play anyway you put it. Now do I think that someone should be ejected for it absolutely not but that is a different discussion than if it should be illegal.

Wait, they are trying to prevent non-solo tackles, where the defender doesn't launch, unloads his tackle at what would've been the mid-section, and keeps his head inline with his body at the proper body angle to unload a tackle?

Doesn't launch at all. Right foot is still on the ground. This isn't disputable.

Goes into the tackle at a position that would've been Dekker's thigh region. Perfect attack location and the safest for the runner that there is.

Runner is being tackled and still moving forward. It's the second tacklers job to minimize yards gained. You can want it to be defined as a defenseless player, but he isn't by letter or spirit of the law. By that definition every tackle that isn't a solo tackle is illegal contact to a defenseless player.

Head is in line with body.

Body is in the perfect unload angle to drive through a ball carrier.

It's a dangerous play because tackling is dangerous. Every player on this play is making sound football plays, with the exception of the tackler not wrapping up. There's nothing you can do technique or teaching-wise to make this any safer while making the right football play.

 

[VeloClone]

Dekkers made some mistakes, but on the overall played about as well as one would hope. Some brutal drops, most notably by Hutch, hurt our chances but that fumble was 1000% on him. He was better today but it's obvious he has issues playing to, through, and anticipating contact. He knew it was coming but instead of putting 2 hands on the football he UNNECESSARILY (key word) compromised his own safety by lowering his head/level. That A) opened up the chance of the fumble and B) could have resulted in him being hurt.

Dekkers was not voluntarily lowering head/level. At that point he was being tackled by the first defender.

 

[CYEATHAWK]

I think the point is there are a few factors for targeting, and only one is in play, which is the crown of the helmet, and that isn't clear. If you are going to kick a kid out of a game and have a 15 yard penalty, you better be damn sure.

You are absolutely correct...........and also I think the point of contention with many ISU fans thanks to exhibit A the Baylor game and Freyler.

This isn't about being perfect......it's about being consistent. And more than once including twice in said Baylor game it wasn't.

Because they seemed damn sure Freyler did something and yet don't believe our lying eyes otherwise? Just frustrating.

 

[2forISU]

I feel like a couple years ago we didn't know what a catch was, now we don't know if the hit is legal or not. It's such a cluster **** and I can't blame anyone except the fools that make these rules.

 

[AuH2O]

You are absolutely correct...........and also I think the point of contention with many ISU thanks to exhibit A the Baylor game and Freyler.

This isn't about being perfect......it's about being consistent. And more than once including twice in said Baylor game it wasn't.

And I've tried to make clear that the Baylor crew was terrible simply because a worse hit on Brock was not called.

But unless this was the same crew, I don't think we want to use the clownshow at Baylor as some guide for what a call should or shouldn't be.

The crew at Texas missed two horrible calls, on the same drive, both 15 yarders, one on each team - the roughing on ISU and a missed blatant pass interference on ISU.

My problem is with the same people freaking out about Freyler getting called because it was a bad call are using the "letter of the law" argument to say the hit on Dekkers was clearly targeting.

 

[Urbandale2013]

Wait, they are trying to prevent non-solo tackles, where the defender doesn't launch, unloads his tackle at what would've been the mid-section, and keeps his head inline with his body at the proper body angle to unload a tackle?

Doesn't launch at all. Right foot is still on the ground. This isn't disputable.

Goes into the tackle at a position that would've been Dekker's thigh region. Perfect attack location and the safest for the runner that there is.

Runner is being tackled and still moving forward. It's the second tacklers job to minimize yards gained. You can want it to be defined as a defenseless player, but he isn't by letter or spirit of the law. By that definition every tackle that isn't a solo tackle is illegal contact to a defenseless player.

Head is in line with body.

Body is in the perfect unload angle to drive through a ball carrier.

It's a dangerous play because tackling is dangerous. Every player on this play is making sound football plays, with the exception of the tackler not wrapping up. There's nothing you can do technique or teaching-wise to make this any safer while making the right football play.

You can try and make yourself feel better but Blum agrees with me that it was likely he was a defenseless player. Gang tackles are fine. I’m not sure why you think they are all bad in this case. Only ones where you drive into the head or neck area. Also the reason this is such a dangerous play is the result. You saw Dekkers neck compression. That is the type of hit that can seriously injure someone. As I said it wasn’t dirty or anything so it’s one of those things where the defender can’t do much but it absolutely has to be eliminated or you are not going to have a sport in 10 years. You keep saying he had his head up but there are pictures of where he contacted the helmet and it is clearly on the crown of the helmet.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

Refs didn't want to go against a home texa$ crowd, eject a guy with 2 minutes to play and force him to miss the first half of the next game, nor extend a drive. Just spineless. I bet ISU gets that call in quarters 1-3 but because it is the end of the game, they swallowed their whistle.

Refs always swallow their whistle against our opponent. I feel that the bias is clear from that regard. Bad calls happen, but when we're having Dallas call in a video review that wasn't called on the field, you know there's some serious bias.

 

[AuH2O]

You can try and make yourself feel better but Blum agrees with me that it was likely he was a defenseless player. Gang tackles are fine. I’m not sure why you think they are all bad in this case. Only ones where you drive into the head or neck area. Also the reason this is such a dangerous play is the result. You saw Dekkers neck compression. That is the type of hit that can seriously injure someone. As I said it wasn’t dirty or anything so it’s one of those things where the defender can’t do much but it absolutely has to be eliminated or you are not going to have a sport in 10 years. You keep saying he had his head up but there are pictures of where he contacted the helmet and it is clearly on the crown of the helmet.

Here's the NCAAs designation of a defenseless player. The only possible one is forward progress had been stopped, which it hadn't. So he wasn't. Sorry, he's wrong.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I guess we may have to agree to disagree here. From this view slowed down it looks like the defender makes helmet to helmet contact with Dekkers, with his crown making contact first and then facemask sliding through at the end as his helmet moves to the side. I also think you could make a case that Dekker’s is defenseless considering he’s being tackled by another defender and was an inch from his knee being on the ground.

Why does it matter if it's helmet to helmet? He speared him into his chest/shoulder with his helmet and yes their helmets made contact. Texas' defender helmet crown deflects off Dekkers' ear hole.

 

[Urbandale2013]

Here's the NCAAs designation of a defenseless player. The only possible one is forward progress had been stopped, which it hadn't. So he wasn't. Sorry, he's wrong.

View attachment 104424

Go tell that to Blum then because he says he thinks that by that definition he was a defenseless player. Post 364. Like I said go make up stuff to make yourself feel better but like Blum has said you can make the argument for it not being targeting but you are doing so by making some extreme interpretations and woefully missing the intent of the rule.

 

[AuH2O]

You can try and make yourself feel better but Blum agrees with me that it was likely he was a defenseless player. Gang tackles are fine. I’m not sure why you think they are all bad in this case. Only ones where you drive into the head or neck area. Also the reason this is such a dangerous play is the result. You saw Dekkers neck compression. That is the type of hit that can seriously injure someone. As I said it wasn’t dirty or anything so it’s one of those things where the defender can’t do much but it absolutely has to be eliminated or you are not going to have a sport in 10 years. You keep saying he had his head up but there are pictures of where he contacted the helmet and it is clearly on the crown of the helmet.

So it wasn't a cheap play or dirty play, but you want to have rules based on result that is out of control of the player, not on their controllable action? Then it probably is time to end organized football.

Here's the problem with what you suggest, and what happens. DBs from EVERY team, every game come flying in with their heads totally down and because the whiff or don't make contact with the head, no penalty.

A guy comes in and tackles appropriately with a runner still falling forward but because that runner is being taken down the correct position at the point of attack no becomes contact with the head. You want that to be a penalty?

The reality of the sport is you can sometimes have the best approach in a play, and people still get hurt. You can sometimes do stupid dangerous things like ball carriers leading with their crown or DBs launching and whiffing with their crown, and no one gets hurt.

We have a ton of head and neck injuries in football because dangerous actions are not punished because they are A) offensive players committing them and B) defensive players that get lucky and miss the offensive players head despite launching with their head down.

I think we'd be shocked at the reduction in head and neck injuries if we ruled in a way that led to corrective action.

 

[AuH2O]

Go tell that to Blum then because he says he thinks that by that definition he was a defenseless player. Post 364. Like I said go make up stuff to make yourself feel better but like Blum has said you can make the argument for it not being targeting but you are doing so by making some extreme interpretations and woefully missing the intent of the rule.

@brentblum - I don't think Dekkers is defenseless by the NCAA's definition. If any definition per NCAA rules applies, it would be if his forward progress was stopped. Considering he's falling forward that doesn't seem to be the case. No other definition really is close.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

@brentblum - I don't think Dekkers is defenseless by the NCAA's definition. If any definition per NCAA rules applies, it would be if his forward progress was stopped. Considering he's falling forward that doesn't seem to be the case. No other definition really is close.

If you switch the jerseys on that play I can guarantee you that it's called as targeting.

 

[Statefan10]

So it wasn't a cheap play or dirty play, but you want to have rules based on result that is out of control of the player, not on their controllable action? Then it probably is time to end organized football.

Here's the problem with what you suggest, and what happens. DBs from EVERY team, every game come flying in with their heads totally down and because the whiff or don't make contact with the head, no penalty.

A guy comes in and tackles appropriately with a runner still falling forward but because that runner is being taken down the correct position at the point of attack no becomes contact with the head. You want that to be a penalty?

The reality of the sport is you can sometimes have the best approach in a play, and people still get hurt. You can sometimes do stupid dangerous things like ball carriers leading with their crown or DBs launching and whiffing with their crown, and no one gets hurt.

We have a ton of head and neck injuries in football because dangerous actions are not punished because they are A) offensive players committing them and B) defensive players that get lucky and miss the offensive players head despite launching with their head down.

I think we'd be shocked at the reduction in head and neck injuries if we ruled in a way that led to corrective action.

Every one of us here agrees with you that overall the rules are dumb and are almost impossible to be consistent with. That doesn’t change the fact that the play was extremely questionable and would’ve almost certainly been called targeting had the roles been reversed. AND in this same game they call an inexcusable unnecessary roughness call on our LB for making a simple tackle.

It’s all ********. The rules themselves and how they’ve been enforced against us in comparison to our opponents.

 

[Cyhig]

I think the point is there are a few factors for targeting, and only one is in play, which is the crown of the helmet, and that isn't clear. If you are going to kick a kid out of a game and have a 15 yard penalty, you better be damn sure. And not to mention, if it is targeting, I'm not sure there's much to be taught here in the name of safety, because his head position is better than a good majority of ball carriers, blockers and tacklers in most games.

I'm pretty sure he would not be considered a defenseless player. The only time a ball carrier might be considered defenseless is if forward progress has been stopped, but I don't think that ever gets called that and not a late hit.

I'd say - letter of the law - you can make an argument, though I don't think it's clear enough to pull the trigger on such a huge penalty. If that's the spirit of the law, then just end the sport, because there are way more dangerous actions all the time in the game, and there's nothing you are going to use on this as a teaching point in terms of safety.

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. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indications of targeting (emphasis NCAA's) include but are not limited to:

• Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass
• 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
• 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, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
• 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 a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first"

Source

Dekkers was clearly in the grasp of an opponent. Was forward progress stopped? Can't really say. It was certainly in the process of stopping. To me, was the hit even necessary? Clearly Dekkers was in the process of going to the ground before the hit. IMHO, that indicates forward progress has stopped. But a ball carrier can be defenseless as defined by Rule 2-27-14. And it doesn't need to be the crown of the helmet, either. Leading with the shoulder to the head/neck is enough to warrant targeting

 

[cytor]

Next year, have @CoKane start a **** the refs thread 2023 edition before the season starts. We know we be using it.