Targeting calls

[sackman]

i thought the first one against Laguda was textbook targeting. Appropriate call.
The second one was less obvious, and I really didn't think it was a good call. Interested in getting others thoughts on this.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

i thought the first one against Laguda was textbook targeting. Appropriate call.
The second one was less obvious, and I really didn't think it was a good call. Interested in getting others thoughts on this.

While it may have been textbook, it would not have happened had the ball not been thrown behind the receiver. The inaccuracy caused the receiver to spin at the last moment to try and catch it, putting his head in front of Laguda's.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

While it may have been textbook, it would not have happened had the ball not been thrown behind the receiver. The inaccuracy caused the receiver to spin at the last moment to try and catch it, putting his head in front of Laguda's.

That is also exactly why it was targeting. The bad throw put him in a defenseless position. The call was proper.

 

[sackman]

I'm not going to argue Lagudas call, though.

I think the second call was made because the QB looked like he was killed. It wasn't targeting though.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

I'm not going to argue Lagudas call, though.

I think the second call was made because the QB looked like he was killed. It wasn't targeting though.

I'd like to see a replay, was it helmet to helmet?

 

[sackman]

I'd like to see a replay, was it helmet to helmet?

From the replay I saw, it looked like face mask to shoulder. He didn't lead with the crown of the helmet.

 

[InTheBuff]

the second one was such a "boom boom" type of play.... football is such a fast game and the hit took place half a second after the QB released the ball..
not a great call but I suppose after the csu game the Buffs were due for a bad call or two to go against them as calls usually tend to even out over a season

 

[Buffnik]

Refs called it by the rule.

They need to protect the players. But it seems unnecessarily punitive with the suspensions. I think that 15 yards and an ejection for the remainder of the current quarter +1 quarter would be a lot more fair.

 

[ZandiBuff]

IMHO the second one was correct. DLINE / LBs need to figure out you cannot go upright into the QB. Put a shoulder in his gut and call it a day.

It was helmet to helmet on the TV replay. Partly because of the throwing motion, but you've got to know not to be that high. Nothing good comes of it.

 

[4DemBuffs]

Refs called it by the rule.

They need to protect the players. But it seems unnecessarily punitive with the suspensions. I think that 15 yards and an ejection for the remainder of the current quarter +1 quarter would be a lot more fair.

Do the suspensions carry over to the Washington game at all?

 

[Buffnik]

Do the suspensions carry over to the Washington game at all?

We won't have Mulumba for 1st half

 

[DBT]

The problem I have with the rule is the suspension. "Targeting" implies an intent to hit a player in the head/neck area. They are taking a sort of logical step backwards implying that because a defender hit a "defenseless" player in the head/neck area, it was an intentional act. In many of these cases, the defender is not intentionally doing so. It is happenstance. A function of the speed of the game.

That said, to counter my own argument, the intent of the rule is to take head shots out of the game, similar to high sticking in hockey. But reducing injury is the reason behind many rules in contact sports. And in the hockey example, players are suspended only when the league believes there was intent to harm. Otherwise, they only result in penalties.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The whole ejection thing is just stupid. It's supposed to be a deterrent, as if that's what's going through a player's mind mid-play and causes them to maybe pull up on the hit or try for it not to be a helmet to helmet. It makes no sense at all and reeks of a rule put in place by a bunch of people who have never played the sport.

 

[somebody]

i thought the first one against Laguda was textbook targeting. Appropriate call.
The second one was less obvious, and I really didn't think it was a good call. Interested in getting others thoughts on this.

I thought the opposite. I thought Laguda's shoulder hit below the helmet and his helmet hit the shoulder. On Mulumba's hit, you could clearly see helmet to helmet contact.

 

[azbuff]

The whole ejection thing is just stupid. It's supposed to be a deterrent, as if that's what's going through a player's mind mid-play and causes them to maybe pull up on the hit or try for it not to be a helmet to helmet. It makes no sense at all and reeks of a rule put in place by a bunch of people who have never played the sport.

Or people who have an agenda driven by avoiding future liability for head trauma.

 

[Jello Bear]

My recollection is that when Laguda initiated his tackle, the QB was facing to his right with the ball coming forward. Laguda's aim towards the QB's shoulder would be an legal impact. But the throwing motion turned the QB's facemask towards the incoming hit, resulting in helmet-to-helmet contact.

Therefore, I think the QB should have incurred a 15 yard penalty for the hit on himself. /thread.

 

[sackman]

My recollection is that when Laguda initiated his tackle, the QB was facing to his right with the ball coming forward. Laguda's aim towards the QB's shoulder would be an legal impact. But the throwing motion turned the QB's facemask towards the incoming hit, resulting in helmet-to-helmet contact.

Therefore, I think the QB should have incurred a 15 yard penalty for the hit on himself. /thread.

Lagudas hit was on a WR.

 

[Dorn09]

Lagudas hit was late and targeting. Might not help that he has a reputation for targeting.

I thought Mulumba's hit was clean.

 

[Liver]

i thought both calls were good calls. the hit on the qb included helmet to qb facemask which is always going to draw a penalty these days. mm addressed it well-- they have to make sure they are in the right position to avoid getting flagged.

 

[dwyermj]

I thought both were good calls. Laguda's is tough because the receiver's helmet is dropping and the strike zone (which was small to begin with because he's the wr was tiny) but that is precisely the hit they are trying to get out of football. The hit on the QB wasn't malicious but easily avoidable. There was no reason to be hitting him that high.

As far as the suspensions, I know they are harsh but with all the evidence and issues with CTE it's hard for me to argue against anything that is trying to make the game safer. While the idea of suspension isn't going to be on their mind as they are making the hit you can be damn sure it's on Mac's mind when it comes to how much time to spend on where to hit during practices. The large penalty will make coaches focus more on coaching away helmet to helmet.

 

[BuffLuke80]

When I was growing up, if you could square someone up, the flat part of the helmet went to the sternum then wrap and drive. I'd stay away from that these days. Take the helmet outta play, put your head on one side or the other, depending on their direction and wrap, drive. Easier said than done but doable.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

I thought the opposite. I thought Laguda's shoulder hit below the helmet and his helmet hit the shoulder. On Mulumba's hit, you could clearly see helmet to helmet contact.

There does not have to be helmet to helmet contact, or helmet contact by either player at all.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Lagudas hit was late and targeting. Might not help that he has a reputation for targeting.

I thought Mulumba's hit was clean.

The rule specifically states that a QB in or just completing the throwing motion is a defenseless player. Any contact with the head or neck region, with any part of the defender's body, can qualify as targeting.

 

[somebody]

There does not have to be helmet to helmet contact, or helmet contact by either player at all.

Okay, went and read the rule. I only saw the Laguda hit live, and didn't think he hit the head or neck area, or that at least it was pretty iffy. Reading the rule, I guess the Mulumba hit was at least questionable.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Okay, went and read the rule. I only saw the Laguda hit live, and didn't think he hit the head or neck area, or that at least it was pretty iffy. Reading the rule, I guess the Mulumba hit was at least questionable.

He hit a QB in the throwing motion high; not questionable at all. I didn't like it during the game, but is was the correct call.

 

[patebuff]

The whole ejection thing is just stupid. It's supposed to be a deterrent, as if that's what's going through a player's mind mid-play and causes them to maybe pull up on the hit or try for it not to be a helmet to helmet. It makes no sense at all and reeks of a rule put in place by a bunch of people who have never played the sport.

Rules are voted on by coaches and leagues.

 

[patebuff]

I like the idea of two personal fouls/targeting calls in one game, is a removal from the game.

The other problem with the rule is if any part of the helmet/face-mask connects with an opponents helmet/face-mask, it is an automatic targeting, or at least confirmed that way. This is what happened with the Mulumba play. His helmet barely connected with the QB's face-mask and under the letter of the rule, it has to be confirmed as targeting.

Players have to adjust as this is the game we are in now, but the rule itself needs to be adjusted to reflect that sometimes helmets do collide. It is inevitable.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Rules are voted on by coaches and leagues.

Are we sure about that when it comes to the Targeting rule? I can't possibly imagine coaches willingly cast a vote to eject a player for the remainder of a game, and possibly half of the next game, for something the player isn't doing intentionally 99% of the time.

 

[somebody]

I like the idea of two personal fouls/targeting calls in one game, is a removal from the game.

The other problem with the rule is if any part of the helmet/face-mask connects with an opponents helmet/face-mask, it is an automatic targeting, or at least confirmed that way. This is what happened with the Mulumba play. His helmet barely connected with the QB's face-mask and under the letter of the rule, it has to be confirmed as targeting.

Players have to adjust as this is the game we are in now, but the rule itself needs to be adjusted to reflect that sometimes helmets do collide. It is inevitable.

Superior was pointing out that is not the rule. Mulumba didn't do any of the bulleted things in Note 1.

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.

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):

• 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

 

[SuperiorBuff]

I like the idea of two personal fouls/targeting calls in one game, is a removal from the game.

The other problem with the rule is if any part of the helmet/face-mask connects with an opponents helmet/face-mask, it is an automatic targeting, or at least confirmed that way. This is what happened with the Mulumba play. His helmet barely connected with the QB's face-mask and under the letter of the rule, it has to be confirmed as targeting.

Players have to adjust as this is the game we are in now, but the rule itself needs to be adjusted to reflect that sometimes helmets do collide. It is inevitable.

Mulumba's was targeting due to the QB being defined as defenseless per the targeting rule; he hit the QB high during the throwing motion. It was not due to helmet to helmet contact.