Who reviews the refs?

[smitharooney]

Not if you lower your head and launch yourself into a defenseless player. You’re conveniently leaving out two parts of the targeting rule to make your case, which is hilarious.

That’s like saying, “But! But!!! It says in the rule book you’re allowed to touch a player’s face mask!!!” To justify hands to the face being legal. Yeah, you can touch a face mask during a stiff arm, but you’d be leaving out the fact that you can’t grab the face mask just to defend your point. That’s weak sauce.

Read the NCAA rule book definitions and interpretation in the case books. The NFHS ones are the same as NCAA. The definition of a “launch” is in there, the definition of a “defenseless” player is in there, and the shoulder pads are part of the head/neck area.

Look, if you want to keep believing it’s a clean call by all means go ahead, doesn’t affect my day. But cherry picking a tiny part of the rules and leaving other parts out is hokey as shit, lol.

So if I target a guys stomach with my shoulder aren’t I leading with my head ?. Isn’t the head on top of the shoulders ? Won’t the head always lead ? If I dive into a guys ankles aren’t I leading with my helmet? The people wanting targeting on the helmet to helmet hit on the sideline on the interception return don’t realize the targeting doesn’t apply because the runner wasn’t defenseless.Being an official I always side with the officials . I understand how hard it is . They made a rule change on targeting this year that if you can’t prove it’s targeting it’s not targeting . There was evidence it was possibly not targeting . Doesn’t really matter what the 89,000 people in attendance thought it only matters what the guys who have the balls to wear those silly shirts think . Like I always say to people who bitch and moan in the stands . Did he call a foul? Did he call traveling ? Did he call a ball or strike ? If they say no I go well there is your answer .

 

[Fryowa]

So if I target a guys stomach with my shoulder aren’t I leading with my head ?. Isn’t the head on top of the shoulders ? Won’t the head always lead ? If I dive into a guys ankles aren’t I leading with my helmet?

The targeting rules for NFHS (all high school FB in the US), NAIA, and NCAA all specify "head and neck area." Which includes the shoulder pads. None of those examples you listed include the head/neck area.

Also, your example about the sideline hit doesn't hold water because targeting doesn't have to be just a defenseless player. Again, if you take the time to read the actual rule book, which officials are obligated to go by, you'll see that "defenseless player" and targeting aren't mutually exclusive. "Head/neck area" and targeting are.

Again, you're free to whatever opinion you want, and I'm not being facetious when I say this but 99.99% of the people who claim to know the rules have never picked up the book. By no means am I a rules expert--especially in football--but if I am going to argue a call or rule I will definitely try to find it in the book. I also fully admit that I've been proven wrong plenty of times; that's part of the fun of it to me. But I'd rather be wrong and know the rule for the next time. And just for clarity, NCAA rules for all sports, as well as all pro sports are available online for free. NFHS books are six bucks each for a .pdf.

 

[westender]

The targeting rules for NFHS (all high school FB in the US), NAIA, and NCAA all specify "head and neck area." Which includes the shoulder pads. None of those examples you listed include the head/neck area.

Also, your example about the sideline hit doesn't hold water because targeting doesn't have to be just a defenseless player. Again, if you take the time to read the actual rule book, which officials are obligated to go by, you'll see that "defenseless player" and targeting aren't mutually exclusive. "Head/neck area" and targeting are.

Again, you're free to whatever opinion you want, and I'm not being facetious when I say this but 99.99% of the people who claim to know the rules have never picked up the book. By no means am I a rules expert--especially in football--but if I am going to argue a call or rule I will definitely try to find it in the book. I also fully admit that I've been proven wrong plenty of times; that's part of the fun of it to me. But I'd rather be wrong and know the rule for the next time. And just for clarity, NCAA rules for all sports, as well as all pro sports are available online for free. NFHS books are six bucks each for a .pdf.

Hope they do a version that includes video examples of infractions. Some would be obvious but some not so much.

 

[smitharooney]

The targeting rules for NFHS (all high school FB in the US), NAIA, and NCAA all specify "head and neck area." Which includes the shoulder pads. None of those examples you listed include the head/neck area.

Also, your example about the sideline hit doesn't hold water because targeting doesn't have to be just a defenseless player. Again, if you take the time to read the actual rule book, which officials are obligated to go by, you'll see that "defenseless player" and targeting aren't mutually exclusive. "Head/neck area" and targeting are.

Again, you're free to whatever opinion you want, and I'm not being facetious when I say this but 99.99% of the people who claim to know the rules have never picked up the book. By no means am I a rules expert--especially in football--but if I am going to argue a call or rule I will definitely try to find it in the book. I also fully admit that I've been proven wrong plenty of times; that's part of the fun of it to me. But I'd rather be wrong and know the rule for the next time. And just for clarity, NCAA rules for all sports, as well as all pro sports are available online for free. NFHS books are six bucks each for a .pdf.

Just read the NCAA rule on targeting. I stand corrected about it doesn't have to be a defenseless player if there is contact with the crown of your helmet. When the player isn't defenseless it has to meet other indications. The interception didn't meet any of those . By rule 9-1-3 of the crown of helmet penalty rule it was the correct no call

 

[Fryowa]

Just read the NCAA rule on targeting. I stand corrected about it doesn't have to be a defenseless player if there is contact with the crown of your helmet. When the player isn't defenseless it has to meet other indications. The interception didn't meet any of those . By rule 9-1-3 of the crown of helmet penalty rule it was the correct no call

You didn't read far enough. 9-1-4 says:

"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head and neck area (the top of the shoulder pads is by definition in the rules included in the head and 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."

So—you have a hit to the head and neck area to a defenseless player* with at least one indicator of targeting** That makes it targeting.

*From the NCAA rule book--

"Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but 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 who has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• a kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or return.
• a kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch ir 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."

**From the NCAA rule book--

"Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It occurs when 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."

Instances include, but are not limited to:

• launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and foprward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the heand 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 the 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 his helmet"

You can't just take one little snippet about the crown of the helmet and say

By rule 9-1-3 of the crown of helmet penalty rule it was the correct no call"

...when there are many other applications of the rule.

 

[Hawk4Fan]

You are right . I want Iowa to lose because I’m not a whiny little bitch about the refs . Keep snorting the draino Bob .

IF you believe anything about the refs you said, you are the one snorting alot of coke bro talk about a Braska fan right here ...clown go away!

 

[smitharooney]

You didn't read far enough. 9-1-4 says:

"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head and neck area (the top of the shoulder pads is by definition in the rules included in the head and 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."

So—you have a hit to the head and neck area to a defenseless player* with at least one indicator of targeting** That makes it targeting.

*From the NCAA rule book--

"Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but 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 who has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• a kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or return.
• a kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch ir 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."

**From the NCAA rule book--

"Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It occurs when 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."

Instances include, but are not limited to:

• launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and foprward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the heand 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 the 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 his helmet"

You can't just take one little snippet about the crown of the helmet and say ...when there are many other applications of the rule.

Well he clearly didn't "go beyond" on the interception return. The returner wasn't defenseless and the tackler held him up with incidental helmet to helmet contact. The rule even says to be emphasized on defenseless players which includes any part of your body or crown of the helmet contact. A rule is a rule and you can't argue a rule. I guess I did read it incorrectly. It really is to be applied on defenseless players. It's almost impossible to make a legal tackle with some type of crown of helmet contact. According to the rule the sideline was the correct no call

 

[smitharooney]

IF you believe anything about the refs you said, you are the one snorting alot of coke bro talk about a Braska fan right here ...clown go away!

Refs are human. They see what they see. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron

 

[Fryowa]

Well he clearly didn't "go beyond" on the interception return. The returner wasn't defenseless and the tackler held him up with incidental helmet to helmet contact. The rule even says to be emphasized on defenseless players which includes any part of your body or crown of the helmet contact. A rule is a rule and you can't argue a rule. I guess I did read it incorrectly. It really is to be applied on defenseless players. It's almost impossible to make a legal tackle with some type of crown of helmet contact. According to the rule the sideline was the correct no call

What the F are you talking about? Nobody said anything about the interception return...it was the reception in the middle of the field on the last drive.

The replay clearly shows the hit was to the head and neck area and it's clear that he's defenseless--WR's feet haven't even touched the ground and the defender lowered his head and launched. How much fucking clearer do you want it?

You've either confused yourself or you're trying to talk yourself in circles to avoid being wrong.

 

[GoHawks12345]

Yes, I think the refs missed a lot of calls. Mostly not in Iowa's favor.

But on Nebraska's last drive, they called in illegal block on a Nebraska player that pretty much killed their drive. And the merits of the call are debatable, for no other reason that refs "let them play" in the final minutes of the game.

But if the refs were up to anything nefarious, they EASILY could have ignored that call. Since it killed their drive, and gave us the ball. Their drive could have continued. They were getting close to field goal range. So it was a big call, especially in hindsight. It forced them into an obvious passing situation.

 

[smitharooney]

What the F are you talking about? Nobody said anything about the interception return...it was the reception in the middle of the field on the last drive.

The replay clearly shows the hit was to the head and neck area and it's clear that he's defenseless--WR's feet haven't even touched the ground and the defender lowered his head and launched. How much fucking clearer do you want it?

You've either confused yourself or you're trying to talk yourself in circles to avoid being wrong.

At 1:14 pm you were talking about the sideline hit not holding water. Jesus the interception went down the sideline at the end of the second quarter just before halftime . Did you already forget the entire conversation??????

 

[smitharooney]

What the F are you talking about? Nobody said anything about the interception return...it was the reception in the middle of the field on the last drive.

The replay clearly shows the hit was to the head and neck area and it's clear that he's defenseless--WR's feet haven't even touched the ground and the defender lowered his head and launched. How much fucking clearer do you want it?

You've either confused yourself or you're trying to talk yourself in circles to avoid being wrong.

Now back to this hit on the game winning drive. Yes he is defensless so the rule can be applied here. Yes there is a launch. In real time the hit looks like targeting so the flag should have been thrown so they can at least review it if they don't buzz down. Now this is just a snippet as you say of the hit. This angle looks like shoulder to head or neck. Now they went through some other angles that showed it looked like shoulder to shoulder contact and head or neck contact was avoided. Did he try to target and injure? Who knows.

 

[BVHawk95]

Yes, I think the refs missed a lot of calls. Mostly not in Iowa's favor.

But on Nebraska's last drive, they called in illegal block on a Nebraska player that pretty much killed their drive. And the merits of the call are debatable, for no other reason that refs "let them play" in the final minutes of the game.

But if the refs were up to anything nefarious, they EASILY could have ignored that call. Since it killed their drive, and gave us the ball. Their drive could have continued. They were getting close to field goal range. So it was a big call, especially in hindsight. It forced them into an obvious passing situation.

That call was not an illegal block in the back.

It was an illegal blindside block call, and it was the correct call. Matt Millen had no clue what he was talking about (big surprise there). It's a new rule this year in all levels of football. Similar to hits on defenseless receivers. Koerner was crossing in front of the WR, not looking for him.

Blind Side Block – Rule 2-3-7 and Rule 9-1-18
A blind side block is defined as an open field block against an opponent that is initiated from outside the opponent’s field of vision, or otherwise in such a manner that the opponent cannot reasonably defend himself against the block. (Exceptions: (1) the runner; (2) a receiver in the act of attempting to make a catch.)

We were called for it against Rutgers on Ojemudia's pick.

 

[smitharooney]

That call was not an illegal block in the back.

It was an illegal blindside block call, and it was the correct call. Matt Millen had no clue what he was talking about (big surprise there). It's a new rule this year in all levels of football. Similar to hits on defenseless receivers. Koerner was crossing in front of the WR, not looking for him.

Blind Side Block – Rule 2-3-7 and Rule 9-1-18
A blind side block is defined as an open field block against an opponent that is initiated from outside the opponent’s field of vision, or otherwise in such a manner that the opponent cannot reasonably defend himself against the block. (Exceptions: (1) the runner; (2) a receiver in the act of attempting to make a catch.)

We were called for it against Rutgers on Ojemudia's pick.

Nowhere in his statement does he say block in the back .

 

[BVHawk95]

Nowhere in his statement does he say block in the back .

Does that change anything? He was arguing that the call was wrong. It wasn't.

 

[GoHawks12345]

Does that change anything? He was arguing that the call was wrong. It wasn't.

No, I was saying the call easily could have been "missed". Or ignored, giving the timing in the game. It killed a potentially game winning drive for Nebraska.

If someone believes there was any conspiracy against Iowa to get Nebraska a win for a bowl game, I would point to that call being made (correctly or otherwise), as exhibit 1 for why that would make no sense.

 

[BVHawk95]

No, I was saying the call easily could have been "missed". Or ignored, giving the timing in the game. It killed a potentially game winning drive for Nebraska.

If someone believes there was any conspiracy against Iowa to get Nebraska a win for a bowl game, I would point to that call being made (correctly or otherwise), as exhibit 1 for why that would make no sense.

Fair enough. I misread you. However, tons of Nebby fans were bitching about that call online when it was clear.

 

[smitharooney]

No, I was saying the call easily could have been "missed". Or ignored, giving the timing in the game. It killed a potentially game winning drive for Nebraska.

If someone believes there was any conspiracy against Iowa to get Nebraska a win for a bowl game, I would point to that call being made (correctly or otherwise), as exhibit 1 for why that would make no sense.

Exactly . There wasn’t much forcible contact on the blindside block . By rule it’s the correct call but it’s like a Ref calling a hand check 90 feet from the basket with two seconds left in a tie game with both teams in the double bonus

 

[BVHawk95]

Exactly . There wasn’t much forcible contact on the blindside block . By rule it’s the correct call but it’s like a Ref calling a hand check 90 feet from the basket with two seconds left in a tie game with both teams in the double bonus

Not really. It was right in front of the play and is a point of emphasis for officials this season.