Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Targeting no-call
Page: 1 of 1
shabamon
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 7,312
mail
shabamon
mail
Posted: 11/8/2017 8:57 PM
What the hell was that? DL Knock gets his brain smashed and nothing. Even Desmond Howard said he could hear the crack from the booth.



I don't know what targeting is anymore. OCF doesn't know what pass interference is anymore. If you watched Miami/Akron last night, you may not be all that sure what a catch is anymore.
Last Edited: 11/8/2017 9:00:35 PM by shabamon
BryanHall
General User
BH
Member Since: 9/12/2010
Post Count: 620
person
mail
BryanHall
mail
Posted: 11/8/2017 9:00 PM
Looked like a textbook example of targeting to me.
rpbobcat
General User
R
Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,661
person
mail
rpbobcat
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 6:43 AM
The ESPN broadcasters sure made it sound like targeting.

It was also pretty clear on the replay.

The ref's explanation why it wasn't made no sense.

When we kept getting hit with targeting calls the explanation was that it was "the act",regardless of cause or intent.
Seems like the refs had a different interpretation of the rule on that play.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,795
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 6:49 AM
shabamon wrote:expand_more
What the hell was that? DL Knock gets his brain smashed and nothing. Even Desmond Howard said he could hear the crack from the booth.



I don't know what targeting is anymore. OCF doesn't know what pass interference is anymore. If you watched Miami/Akron last night, you may not be all that sure what a catch is anymore.
Did not meet the definition of targeting. #1 Knock was never considered a defenseless player by rule. There are different types of a target (2), and for a target on a defenseless player there does not have to be intent, on a non-defenseless player there must be intent and an indicator present.
Last Edited: 11/9/2017 6:51:35 AM by BillyTheCat
rpbobcat
General User
R
Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,661
person
mail
rpbobcat
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 7:42 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
What the hell was that? DL Knock gets his brain smashed and nothing. Even Desmond Howard said he could hear the crack from the booth.



I don't know what targeting is anymore. OCF doesn't know what pass interference is anymore. If you watched Miami/Akron last night, you may not be all that sure what a catch is anymore.
Did not meet the definition of targeting. #1 Knock was never considered a defenseless player by rule. There are different types of a target (2), and for a target on a defenseless player there does not have to be intent, on a non-defenseless player there must be intent and an indicator present.
Looking at the replay,the Toledo player lead with crown of his helmet.
That's "intent".

No question Ohio's player "dipped" his head at the end of the play.
That "dip" caused a "helmet to helmet" hit.

The point the broadcasters seemed to be stressing was not the helmet to helmet,but leading with the crown.

Based on the wording in the rule,just leading with the crown of the helmet should have triggered a targeting call.
Last Edited: 11/9/2017 7:43:18 AM by rpbobcat
100%Cat
General User
Member Since: 1/17/2013
Post Count: 2,725
mail
100%Cat
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 8:08 AM
I've seen a lot less resulting in a targeting call and ejection.
doubledribble
General User
D
Member Since: 10/6/2010
Post Count: 558
person
mail
doubledribble
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 9:36 AM
It will be interesting to see if Ohio receives an apology from the league office after they review this play more thoroughly. Will fly the drone over the offices the next couple of days and see if I can pick up intel.
A-townBound
General User
Member Since: 3/31/2012
Location: Georgetown, KY
Post Count: 672
mail
A-townBound
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 9:57 AM
rpbobcat
General User
R
Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,661
person
mail
rpbobcat
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 10:09 AM
Frank or someone on his staff should download a replay to their phone.

Then,the next time we get hit with a targeting call, he can show it to the referee.
Last Edited: 11/9/2017 10:09:35 AM by rpbobcat
boydhallbobcat
General User
B
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 286
person
mail
boydhallbobcat
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 10:09 AM
Is there video of it? I was at the game and couldn't see it clearly.
bobcatgrad
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan
Post Count: 348
mail
bobcatgrad
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 10:48 AM
It's a close call, but I can see why targeting wasn't called looking at the 1 hr 22 min mark of a video you can easily find online. A really tough one to call I think.
GroverBall
General User
GB
Member Since: 12/3/2012
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 1,294
person
mail
GroverBall
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 12:25 PM
After the play was reviewed, the head referee on the field explained that there was no targeting because it was not "forcable"? I think that's what he said but maybe he said enforceable? But neither makes sense to me.
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 11/9/2017 4:44 PM
boydhallbobcat wrote:expand_more
Is there video of it? I was at the game and couldn't see it clearly.
The replay of the game is up on Watch ESPN. I think you can fast forward through it, although it's a game worth watching again.

I was surprised they didn't call it. I told my wife last night that Knock dipping his helmet was a pure reflex action. If he hadn't, he would've taken a helmet to the jaw and likely would've been knocked unconscious.
Showing Messages: 1 - 13 of 13
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)