Other College Football

[HOGSRUNWILD]

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an
opponent with the crown of their helmet The crown of the helmet is the top
segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius
from the apex (top) of the helmet This foul requires that there be at least one
indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul (Rule
9-6) (AR 9-1-3-I)
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) (AR 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 their 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 This includes an
offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield
• 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 themselves 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
themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier
RUE 9 / Condt o Plays and ths FR-97
• 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 themselves up and is sliding feetfirst


People get caught up on Section 3, the crown of the helmet, when it absolutely isn't needed for targeting.  Section 4 would be the applicable part for the UT game and it is absolutely targeting.  Anyone saying it wasn't is either blind, a UT fan or trying to simp for the officials that clearly got it wrong.

[BleedinRed]

That would definitely cut down on the behavior, but I don't think anyone wants to go that far.  A coach could say "That was a terrible call" and one official could say that was berating and toss the coach.  Nobody wants that.  I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think that's too far.

I was thinking more about the dog cussing and general yelling.  And I would want to see personal foul flags before someone gets tossed.  The official would have someway to set a boundary during a game.

No other profession would allow that type of behavior.  

[Son of Spam]

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an
opponent with the crown of their helmet The crown of the helmet is the top
segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius
from the apex (top) of the helmet This foul requires that there be at least one
indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul (Rule
9-6) (AR 9-1-3-I)
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) (AR 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 their 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 This includes an
offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield
• 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 themselves 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
themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier
RUE 9 / Condt o Plays and ths FR-97
• 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 themselves up and is sliding feetfirst


People get caught up on Section 3, the crown of the helmet, when it absolutely isn't needed for targeting.  Section 4 would be the applicable part for the UT game and it is absolutely targeting.  Anyone saying it wasn't is either blind, a UT fan or trying to simp for the officials that clearly got it wrong.

Nearly all of those start with "no player." As someone stated above, what about an offensive player lowering his head to hit a defensive player making a tackle. I have seen that a LOT and usually the only targeting is called on the defense. Seems unfair to only look at the defense tackling when the offensive player ducks his head and goes lower than the defense was going. The defensive player doesn't have time to react. Not sure how to remedy that but I have never seen targeting on the offense called.

[HOGSRUNWILD]

Nearly all of those start with "no player." As someone stated above, what about an offensive player lowering his head to hit a defensive player making a tackle. I have seen that a LOT and usually the only targeting is called on the defense. Seems unfair to only look at the defense tackling when the offensive player ducks his head and goes lower than the defense was going. The defensive player doesn't have time to react. Not sure how to remedy that but I have never seen targeting on the offense called.

Oh, I think that is a good discussion to have.  However, the question of the UT player isn't really open to discussion as it was clear-cut targeting and anyone arguing otherwise has an agenda...

[arreferee]

Second, I don't know what officials make at that level, but if you're doing it for the money, just like soldiering, teaching, etc., you're not in it for the right reasons. 

Fourth, officials should be graded, and coaches and/or AD's should have visibility to the grades.  You could set an expectation that officials have to grade out and a certain level or they don't get retained.  Obviously a Jr HS official gets more grace than an SEC official would. 

Finally, I'm sick of the "it's just a game" stuff.  Coaches at every level except city league get graded on wins and losses, and it's their livelihood.  If it's "just a game" to the official, they don't need to be out there.   

Second - I agree, but most of the young officials get started to make extra money in college or right after.  A bunch of terrible experiences will push them away even if they are doing it for the right reasons. 

Fourth - At the college level, all officials are graded every game/every play.  That's really not feasible at the high school level.  You would never get enough guys to grade every film because of the number of games.  There's no money in high school to pay graders either so that's another hurdle. 

Finally - I disagree.  I've never heard of an AD calling a middle school or junior high coach into his office and firing him because he didn't win enough games.  A lot of the lower levels like that are being used to get as many kids snaps as possible so, when they get to high school, the high school team has multiple people to choose from with playing experience. 

[arreferee]

I have a question on the arguing/yelling topic.

Watching unmiked coaches on TV, it sometimes looks like they are giving you guys absolute hell.  When we see a coach apparently screaming at an official, is it usually as bad as it looks?  Or is the tone of voice/facial expression more a factor of just having to be loud for you to hear him amid the commotion?

I remember a video from a Cowboys game several years ago where it looked like Dez was raking Romo over the coals on the sideline.  Both players insisted that wasn't the case, and lo and behold audio surfaced which proved the conversation was indeed positive and just discussing responsibilities on a given play, with no cursing or insulting at all. 

That just depends.  Sometimes it's real because they are pissed off, but sometimes it's just for show to get the players or fans riled up. 

This past season we had a situation where two players were nose to nose after the play yelling at each other.  One gave a very slight push and the other fell like he had been shot.  We didn't flag it because of the flop.  The coach was going nuts wanting a foul.  The two of us on that sideline went to the coach.  I said, "Coach, your guy flopped.  He was barely touched."  The coach kinda grinned and said, "Yeah, I know, but I've trying anything I can to get a break." 

[arreferee]

There are too many inconsistencies with HOW it's called...I agree.

I agree, but I think it's because we've seen a moving target the past several years.  If they can pinpoint what they want, it will get more consistent.

[arreferee]

I have worked some low level basketball and baseball games (under 12). I will admit, it is MUCH harder than it looks and I was not good at it. I try to have a little more grace when criticizing officials.

I appreciate you giving it a shot.  It's not easy, but it's rewarding if you can get past the negatives of it.

In this case, my main point was to say that I think a better system should be implemented. At least at the higher levels of sport like Power 5 football and NFL. There are too many missed calls and reviews take too long considering the technology available.

We have multiple camera angles that show the correct call within 5-10 seconds of a play. Keep the officials on the field and have two officials remotely watching. If there's a disagreement on a call, then majority 2/3rds win, AND they have an official who joins the broadcast to explain the decision instead of a network referee expert who is giving his opinion. I would think more transparency would be good for everyone involved.

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure officiating by committee is a good idea.  If you go with the 2/3 rule you mentioned above, you will have a lot more play stoppages and it will take a lot longer to get through the game.

As far as replays taking so long, most of the time it's because they are trying to get all pertinent information lined out before making an announcement.  When a 15-yard catch for a first down is reversed to incomplete, the replay official has to do the following:

1. Confirm that the pass was actually incomplete.
2. Confirm what the previous spot was (including was it on the hash, middle of the field, etc.).  Most of the time the chains have already moved.
3. Confirm what the down and distance will be with the incomplete pass.  Again, the chains have moved.
4. Check and make sure what the clock should be reset to.  The clock wouldn't have stopped for the first down, so he has to figure out what it should be set to when the ball hit the ground. 

When he has all that figured out, he has to relay all that information to the referee.  The referee will repeat it back to him to make sure he has everything correct.  Then, the referee has to step back and make his announcement.  Sometimes, it just takes a while to get all the information together.  I don't like it anymore than you do, but it's a necessary evil to make sure it's all correct. 

[arreferee]

I was thinking more about the dog cussing and general yelling.  And I would want to see personal foul flags before someone gets tossed.  The official would have someway to set a boundary during a game.

No other profession would allow that type of behavior. 

I'm with you there.  Unfortunately, when you ask 10 officials where they draw the line, you might get 10 slightly different answers.  It's hard to draw a hard and fast line as to what is too far. 

[arreferee]

Nearly all of those start with "no player." As someone stated above, what about an offensive player lowering his head to hit a defensive player making a tackle. I have seen that a LOT and usually the only targeting is called on the defense. Seems unfair to only look at the defense tackling when the offensive player ducks his head and goes lower than the defense was going. The defensive player doesn't have time to react. Not sure how to remedy that but I have never seen targeting on the offense called.

That's been a topic of discussion since targeting was introduced.  I don't know that I've ever heard a good reason as to why it's focused on. 

[DrMongoose]

FCS championship! Stormy!

[Son of Spam]

FCS championship! Stormy!

Should be a good game.

[BleedinRed]

I'm with you there.  Unfortunately, when you ask 10 officials where they draw the line, you might get 10 slightly different answers.  It's hard to draw a hard and fast line as to what is too far. 

Im okay with that.  I don't know why there has to be a hard fast line.  Each head ref can set the terms before the game starts.  If a ref doesn't want to be dog cussed, he can let the coaching staffs know that.   If he doesn't care, then he can say nothing.  The ref should be able to dictate the coach/ref relationship prior to and during the game.   If a coach is too stupid to recognize the boundaries being set then he deserves every flag he gets.  

[Thin Red Swine]

I agree, but I think it's because we've seen a moving target the past several years.  If they can pinpoint what they want, it will get more consistent.

With the rule posted above, it is certainly written to be too all-encompassing. If it has evolved bit by bit over time, that would also make it more disjointed. Each subsection could be dissected for the meaning and/or intent of the written word.

If the replay officials have to go from memory or walk through all those scenarios every time it's reviewed, no wonder it takes so long. 

It needs to be much shorter and clearer.

[DrMongoose]

lol

https://x.com/3yearletterman/status/1876459713195642922?s=61&t=yqgft3mqzhJjVNQN1flX9A

[animal]

2.84 is good?

[GeoHogsGeo]

2.84 is good?

Highest in team history.

[arreferee]

With the rule posted above, it is certainly written to be too all-encompassing. If it has evolved bit by bit over time, that would also make it more disjointed. Each subsection could be dissected for the meaning and/or intent of the written word.

If the replay officials have to go from memory or walk through all those scenarios every time it's reviewed, no wonder it takes so long. 

It needs to be much shorter and clearer.

I agree.  Hopefully it will get cleaned up in the next year or so.  The NCAA (and I've heard some conferences) has put an emphasis on speeding up the reviews in the past few years.  That's good on the surface, but we've seen a few mistakes because the replay officials are being pushed to hurry up and get a ruling.

I will say, sometimes, part of the issue with the reviews taking a while is TV.  The TV crew has to send all the angles to the booth and sometimes that takes longer than it should. 

[HOGSRUNWILD]

Once all the angles are sent to the booth, it should take no more than 60 seconds.

Put a fucking clock on them once all views are in.  If you can't make up your mind in that amount of time, then it isn't conclusive so let the play call on the field stand.  That is where the replay refs get it wrong most of the time.  They are trying to make the right call in the fringes.  That isn't what it was designed for.  If the call on the field isn't CLEARLY wrong with the video you have, without a doubt, then let it stand and that should happen quickly.  If there is even a hint of 'I think', you are doing your job wrong and trying to be an on-field ref after the fact.  Video replay was designed to correct obvious errors, not make borderline calls.

[Son of Spam]

I agree.  Hopefully it will get cleaned up in the next year or so.  The NCAA (and I've heard some conferences) has put an emphasis on speeding up the reviews in the past few years.  That's good on the surface, but we've seen a few mistakes because the replay officials are being pushed to hurry up and get a ruling.

I will say, sometimes, part of the issue with the reviews taking a while is TV.  The TV crew has to send all the angles to the booth and sometimes that takes longer than it should. 

Just let the see the replay on the TV. We see it from every angle in just seconds. And you can actually determine what happened in that time.