BJ Foster's Targetting Call

[cmontexas 3237]

I was glad Amon Ra shook it off though that dude looks like the next Jerry Rice and I cant wait to draft him in fantasy football

Edited September 16, 2018 by cmontexas

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

The rule and penalty for violating the rule are there not to protect players but the future of the game. It’s an extreme response to the very real threats organized football face 15-20 years from now.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

4 hours ago, Vertigo said:

St Browns Mouthpiece flew 5 yards in the air. That is harder to do than to pop a helmet off.

(Humblebrag) On kickoff team in 8th grade, I hit a dude so hard square in the middle of his head it knocked the little grommets or whatever you call those things you snap the chinstrap to, right off his helmet. They had to fix his helmet on the sidelines and he was out of commission for the rest of the game. We'd been going at it all night -- I'd already knocked the shit out of him twice, so on the third time around, he sprinted backwards, whirled around and came at me full force. That was not a good decision on his part, because I'd already been beelining toward his country ass for 20 yards. I got the rockstar treatment from our coaches and then the parents in the stands after the game. Ah, the good ol' days. (/humblebrag)

[Bill Lumbergh 7168]

It's not every day you get to kill a god. 

Worth the penalty, which was correctly called. 

[Goredho 17273]

3 hours ago, MAGS® said:

Per the rules, it was targeting.  There needs to be exceptions to the rule however.  I'm trying to imagine how else to make that tackle from that angle and speed and not be considered targeting.  Wasn't BJ a good foot taller than that runner?   

Go Gata roll!

[HornsOverIthaca 2333]

1 minute ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

It's not every day you get to kill a god. 

Worth the penalty, which was correctly called. 

"Give my regards to King Tut, asshole."

[Bullneck 18959]

2 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

 

I like the horsecollar rule for 4 reasons:

1) Its used by players getting beat to stop forward progress. Its a bitch move.
2) Its an objective call. Not as much interpretation to fuck up
3) It causes injury. Brandon Jones for example against Maryland in the missed call.
4) Fuck evil Roy Williams Nik Harris

 

 

[hookem48 4630]

2 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

 

I like the horsecollar rule for 4 reasons:

1) Its used by players getting beat to stop forward progress. Its a bitch move.
2) Its an objective call. Not as much interpretation to fuck up
3) It causes injury. Brandon Jones for example against Maryland in the missed call.
4) Fuck evil Roy Williams

 

if Roy Williams didn't swing his knees into the back of players legs trying to injure them that rule would have never been made.

[Surly Bevo 24687]

Maybe some day they will just get football players to sign a strongly lawyered waiver.....

[BluTechsan 393]

4 hours ago, George said:

I liked the way he went after him like a bull 2-3 more times after the initial hit. 

He he did. And once more walking away just because.

[Zavala 1384]

Yup. A dude is not defenseless after 4 steps with the ball. Dont run straight up across the field dipshit. 

Foster just laid the hit,shoulder first, no malicious intention. What is he supposed to do? Take out his knee? Two hand touch?

[HouTex 1841]

Yup. A dude is not defenseless after 4 steps with the ball. Dont run straight up across the field dipshit. 
Foster just laid the hit,shoulder first, no malicious intention. What is he supposed to do? Take out his knee? Two hand touch?

This. Note 2 to the rule says he is not defenseless if he clearly is established as a ball carrier. I thought it was clear that he became a ball carrier.

[BurntOrange&White 39272]

Yup, bullshit call is bullshit. B

[You don't know me 1161]

Just now, MAGS® said:

Per the rules, it was targeting.  There needs to be exceptions to the rule however.  I'm trying to imagine how else to make that tackle from that angle and speed and not be considered targeting.  Wasn't BJ a good foot taller than that runner?   

I think that the “heads up” tackling that they are teaching now is what leads to hits like this. Basically, they are teaching kids at the youth level to tackle chest to chest. The days of putting your face mask on the ball are over.

I agree with all that are saying that it was textbook targeting based on how the rule is written.

[BurntOrange&White 39272]

1 minute ago, You don't know me said:

I think that the “heads up” tackling that they are teaching now is what leads to hits like this. Basically, they are teaching kids at the youth level to tackle chest to chest. The days of putting your face mask on the ball are over.

I agree with all that are saying that it was textbook targeting based on how the rule is written.

No it's not pussy. He wasn't defenseless.

[hookem48 4630]

6 minutes ago, HouTex said:

This. Note 2 to the rule says he is not defenseless if he clearly is established as a ball carrier. I thought it was clear that he became a ball carrier.

hitting a defenseless player is not the same as targeting

[triplelonghorn 27]

Straight out of the NCAA definition for "targeting":

 

Quote

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder

. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

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 indicators of targeting 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

Targeting was the right call based on the literal words in the NCAA's rulebook. Note the key portion "when in question, it is a foul"

Edited September 16, 2018 by triplelonghorn
words

[BurntOrange&White 39272]

No, it's not pussy.

[You don't know me 1161]

Just now, Bevo VIII said:

No it's not pussy. He wasn't defenseless.

Uh, okay tough guy. Nowhere did I say that I agree with the rule, but whatever makes you feel internet tough, pussy.

[BurntOrange&White 39272]

Just now, You don't know me said:

Uh, okay tough guy. Nowhere did I say that I agree with the rule, but whatever makes you feel internet tough, pussy.

Smell like stank pussy

[You don't know me 1161]

Just now, Bevo VIII said:

Smell like stank pussy

Whatever, pussy.

[HouTex 1841]

So you don't think he was an established runner? He took several steps and was maneuvering. He ran about 5 yards after the catch before he was hit.

[WBT 20377]

8 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Yup. A dude is not defenseless after 4 steps with the ball. Dont run straight up across the field dipshit. 

Exactly, it was a bad call because the receiver had become a runner and was no longer defenseless.  After securing a catch and starting to run, a player in responsible for his own safety.  Likewise, it is too much of a burden for a defender to have to avoid striking the head of a ball carrier that is trying to evade the tackle.  Everyone saying it was a good call, please read the rule below and explain it to me. 

From the NCAA rulebook here: http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4540-2018-ncaa-football-rules-and-interpretations.aspx (I've bolded the applicable passages)

Quote

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

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 indicators of targeting 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.

For emphasis: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14).  • 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.

How had the receiver not had time to protect himself or not clearly become a ball carrier?  He covered at least 10 yards between making the catch and the hit.  I'm sure the refs would point to the bullshit weasel words in the rule (When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:) but I see no good faith interpretation that would rule that a defenseless player.  They might as well call it what it is and include in the rule book a provision that hard hits are no longer allowed.

[Hozz 1012]

We need stickers on every helmet that declare them to be CTE free zones.  Why hasn't anyone thought of this?

Seriously though, the rule as it is written is terrible.  Foster was supposed to have gone at his knees?  Or just not hit him as hard?  Or maybe just kind of catch the runner and hope he stops?

It's not a safe sport to play.  The targeting rule does not make it any measurably safer, it just makes pussies feel better about watching a violent game.  Watch a guard's helmet on pretty much every snap.  When are we banning line play because safety?  Also why are boxing and MMA ok but football has to CHANGE OR DIE!?!?

[hookem48 4630]

7 minutes ago, hookem48 said:

hitting a defenseless player is not the same as targeting

Reading that rule I guess they do have to be defenseless in college, no way he was defenseless.

[You don't know me 1161]

Just now, hookem48 said:

Reading that rule I guess they do have to be defenseless in college, no way he was defenseless.

But they leave it open to interpretation. It really is stupid, but there is the catch all that allows the refs to use the “if there is any doubt” crap.

[A’Dam Psycho 1465]

As far as reviewing if a player should be ejected or not, I feel that should be more of a judgement call vs this black & white no grey area rule. No other sport ejects a player for something that is instinctual.

[You don't know me 1161]

Just now, A’Dam Psycho said:

As far as reviewing if a player should be ejected or not, I feel that should be more of a judgement call vs this black & white no grey area rule. No other sport ejects a player for something that is instinctual.

Agree, but in my opinion they are trying to take that instinct out of the game. I have had kids playing some level of football every year for the last 18 years. What they are teaching now versus 18 years ago is vastly different.

[Wiler77 1551]

It's amazing to me to see the number of people that think it should be perfectly legal to launch yourself at the head of an opponent.

I've also thought for a while if you really want to eliminate that sort of hit from football, you need to take away padding, not add more of it.  If players wore leather helmets, no one would lead with their head.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Paterno, may his soul burn forever, had a good plan to get rid of this kind of shit. Ban facemasks. You won't be leading with your head when your pretty face is on the line. There would be a lot more broken noses and shit but it would cut down on CTE. 

[Brothahorn 10083]

I think if they wrapped up when tackling, would stop much of the unintentional targeting.

[notre dame joe 171]

 

3 hours ago, HouTex said:

Hadn't he clearly become a ball carrier?

I think they thought the DB led with his crown, in which case it's irrelevant whether the WR  had become defensible. 

[BigHorn'13 3352]

How do you determine leading with your head vs. leading with your shoulder? Whichever makes contact first?

And since he really didn't hit armoral's head, but his chest, where is the appropriate tackle zone supposed to be?

[David Dennison 18487]

50 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Yup. A dude is not defenseless after 4 steps with the ball. Dont run straight up across the field dipshit. 

Foster just laid the hit,shoulder first, no malicious intention. What is he supposed to do? Take out his knee? Two hand touch?

He led with his helmet. They are trying to eliminate that hit from the game completely. Targeting calls and ejections are how you do that.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Is there such thing as targeting on a player who isn’t defenseless in college?  If not, that shouldn’t have been a penalty. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

And I don’t agree he launched himself.  His feet were still on the ground.  

[WBT 20377]

Edit - I was mistaken.  It is now illegal to lead with the crown even when the player is not defenseless (I think this was added a year or two after the original targeting rule?).  I do not think that applied in this case but they may have been the interpretation.

Edited September 16, 2018 by WBT

[Poolflood 845]

1 hour ago, Zavala said:

Yup. A dude is not defenseless after 4 steps with the ball. Dont run straight up across the field dipshit. 

Foster just laid the hit,shoulder first, no malicious intention. What is he supposed to do? Take out his knee? Two hand touch?

There was a lot of malicious intent.  He'll learn to hit about 6 inches lower.

Stearns and Foster are gonna put some wide receiver to sleep over the years.

[Lhorn 4875]

59 minutes ago, HouTex said:

So you don't think he was an established runner? He took several steps and was maneuvering. He ran about 5 yards after the catch before he was hit.

Id say at least 10 yards prob more.

Would like to see these guys learn to put their helmet on the ball.  Eliminates the risk of calls like this.  These young DBs are going to rack up some penalties simply because they hit so damn hard.  Hit lower and pop those balls out.

 

[MOODY 126]

5 hours ago, TexasEd said:

It is a half.  First half of next game since it happened second half of game.  If penalty is in first half, the suspension is the second half of same game.

My mistake, they should then just implement it in the current game and if it happens late in the fourth quarter then that is the end of it.  Just don't carry it over and there is no way in hell they should carry it over to the next season, that is just too punitive.  Next thing you know they will line them up at mid field for the firing squad.

Just kidding on the firing squad thing there.

[George 487]

 

1 hour ago, WBT said:

Link?

There is not

Yes there is. Forcible contact with the crown of the helmet is targeting, whether to the head or neck area, or not. Doesn’t have to be a defenseless player either. 

Edited September 16, 2018 by George

[Zavala 1384]

1 hour ago, triplelonghorn said:

Straight out of the NCAA definition for "targeting":

 

Targeting was the right call based on the literal words in the NCAA's rulebook. Note the key portion "when in question, it is a foul"

So next time a running back lowers his head into a defensive player helmet they will throw him out of the game?

[Alien Octopus 499]

7 hours ago, Vertigo said:

For real though, that targeting was legit as was the USC targeting. They were both minor, but textbook according to the rules. Foster launched himself and his helmet hit up under St Browns facemask. That gets called every time in todays college football.

if you mean he led with his shoulder you are correct, he did not lead with his head. But yeah kill shot. As for launching, he never left his feet. So I guess launching know means running at a player.

[notre dame joe 171]

3 hours ago, BigHorn'13 said:

How do you determine leading with your head vs. leading with your shoulder? Whichever makes contact first?

And since he really didn't hit armoral's head, but his chest, where is the appropriate tackle zone supposed to be?

Yes leading with the crown is always targeting.  And it's a judgment call when a player tries to lead with the shoulder, because his head is necessarily sticking out from there.

[Guest]

Neither BJ or SC linebacker looked like targeting live. They were both obvious on replay. I don’t think there was malicious intent on either of them, but they were both obvious and correctly called. 

[jettrink 42]

It was an awesome hit!  Reminded me of Bryant Westbrook against ND!  That's the kind of shit that lights up a team.  Fuck any pussy that doesn't like real football.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

(Humblebrag) On kickoff team in 8th grade, I hit a dude so hard square in the middle of his head it knocked the little grommets or whatever you call those things you snap the chinstrap to, right off his helmet. They had to fix his helmet on the sidelines and he was out of commission for the rest of the game. We'd been going at it all night -- I'd already knocked the shit out of him twice, so on the third time around, he sprinted backwards, whirled around and came at me full force. That was not a good decision on his part, because I'd already been beelining toward his country ass for 20 yards. I got the rockstar treatment from our coaches and then the parents in the stands after the game. Ah, the good ol' days. (/humblebrag)

Did you tell him your name was sweetjones on the old site and ask him about the Dallas suburbs?

[BigHorn'13 3352]

55 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Yes leading with the crown is always targeting.  And it's a judgment call when a player tries to lead with the shoulder, because his head is necessarily sticking out from there.

If that's the case then there's the problem. We can't distinguish between leading with the head or shoulder. I would still argue that he could've lead with his helmet and didn't, shading his left shoulder to the chest for a big hit. 

[Mileslong 4709]

For real though, that targeting was legit as was the USC targeting. They were both minor, but textbook according to the rules. Foster launched himself and his helmet hit up under St Browns facemask. That gets called every time in todays college football.

It was targeting by rule but he didn’t launch himself as you said. The USC guy launched himself. Foster hit QB with the side of his helmet, not really the crown but close enough, Foster never left his feet, that’s not launching

[Nivek 16772]

Y’all argue and get emotional about the stupidest shit.