targeting call
- Thread starter I-M-UR
- Start date
Call seemed borderline, but it really hurt. Spiders may not have won, but putting the Tribe down 14 might have caused them to abandon the running game sooner. Making Tribe one dimensional may have helped our defense and we could have tried to milk the clock with the running game. Who knows. Call was unfortunate for Rubin who was making a good, aggressive play.
Bad call - Clueley turned toward Rubin. Also obviously Clueley was fine and suffered no repercussions.
Think it is a rules problem more than a review problem. NCAA has to figure out "targeting". When a defensive player is going in for a clean tackle and the offensive player ducks down and gets hit near or on the head it shouldn't be a penalty on the defense.
Huge game changer. Lost in this discussion is that we had them in a third down and 30 situation on that play.
Another play almost as big was early in the third quarter when somebody I'm not sure who, bobbled a perfectly thrown pass which was intercepted.
Another play almost as big was early in the third quarter when somebody I'm not sure who, bobbled a perfectly thrown pass which was intercepted.
Refs played a huge role today. Flags flying on almost every play. Terrible call on the targeting. The QB was outside the pocket which makes him a ball carrier. The replay showed a football play but not a targeting call. I hope that Coach Rocco sends the replay into the CAA as these refs need to be penalized. Once Lauletta was injured, we had nothing on offense. Not good heading into the playoffs.
The rule is unclear but the real problem is still the officials who can't seem to enforce it logically.
It was a great hit by Rubin. Lit him UP.
F the CAA officials. Total garbage.
F the CAA officials. Total garbage.
Agreed. The most pathetic part is they reviewed this and still upheld and threw our guy out. Cluely ducked his head down as we were making the tackle and there was still no head to head hit.
Have the CAA officials overturned a single call this year? What is the Effing point of these reviews? Total waste of time.
I don't normally go after refs but watching it at live speed I threw my remote knowing they were gonna call it.
Completely agree f these clowns. Completely changed the trajectory of the game their O wasn't doing squat to us until after that horrendous call. We win that game probably up 8 considering their O sucked before that call. That blown call made Derrick Williams call (vs Charlotte) look like the call of the century.
Last edited:
Just a horrendous call. Likely highly influenced by w&m bench given point of CLEAN contact
Just a hardnosed play made by a GREAT hardnosed player.
Football is a contact sport, let the boys play. Clearly no malicious intent.
Just a hardnosed play made by a GREAT hardnosed player.
Football is a contact sport, let the boys play. Clearly no malicious intent.
It seemed to me like the flag came way after but I may have just been watching the return.
It's really interesting to read the varying opinions on the legality of the hit by Rubin on Cluley. Obviously, all Spider fans think it to be a clean football play while each and every Tribe fan, on various boards around the country, think it was a good call. All seem to agree that it was the turning point in the game. I'm sure my bias as a Spider fan is coming through here but I didn't think it was even close. Something needs to change with the rule and even more needs to change with the replay. Is political correctness spilling into a replay official afraid to change a call that's intended to protect a defenseless player?
Regardless of whether you agree with the call or not, safe to say all agree it was the most critical play of the game. RTD has two articles on the game in the paper today, neither of which mentions the play. Fine reporting. Very strange......
At the end of the day targeting is only supposed to be called if the defensive player BLATANTLY leads with his head. There is helmet to helmet contact on almost every hit and as a player there's not much you can do about it. Basically they called it on Rubin because he f****** blew someone up. That's not what the penalty is supposed to be. Terrible call, cost us the game.
couple of things, get rid of the name "targeting" with these situations, football is a game of targeting, whether a pass thrown, or a tackle or a block, the players are targeting, just drop that name. secondly, get rid of ejecting a player, stupid, majority of time just tackling and heads collide, not an offense that warrants a player being removed from the game. thirdly, the replay officials get it wrong more often than not or cannot come to a conclusion so just stick with the call on the field anyway. understand safety but like in most things, it goes too far, way too far and makes the game longer and the fans madder and not sure how much safer it makes the players.
I watched the game with former William & Mary football players. Not a one of them thought that was a good call.
It wasn't with the crown of his helmet, and Cluley wasn't defenseless. It meets neither of the criteria. The fact that replay didn't overturn it doesn't prove anything (the vast majority of targeting calls "stand" even when they are not applied properly) and is just cowardice on the part of the replay official.
Cluley bounced right up and pursued the @#$#ing play!
It is the targeting rule (See NCAA rule below), along with the way that it is enforced in the CAA that causes the problem. The rule was instituted because of the growing concussion injuries and the resultant lawsuits. I think that most agree that we do need a rule. However, we need to understand it in clear and easily applied terms. Such is not the case today, especially with respect to the CAA.
In the CAA, the refs apparently call it whenever there is significant contact with even the slightest helmet-to-helmet contact. Even though helmet-to-helmet contact is not a requirement, it has always been involved in the numerous calls that I have seen this year, both in CAA games and those in other conferences.
On top of that, the Review Team of the CAA, assuming that there is indeed a Review Team (I suspect that the whole review process may be a ruse to lend legitimacy to on-field calls.), has apparently made a decision not to ever overturn a targeting call. I have seen them overturned in other conferences, but never in the CAA.
The announcers were pretty bad in most respects (I didn't hear an explanation for half of the penalties called), but I think that the announcers were correct in questioning the legitimacy of the call as considered in light of the rule. What they failed to take into account is the way the rule is uniquely applied in the CAA. While I can find no language in the rule which would have justified the call against Rubin, CAA officials have been consistent in the application of the rule, however incorrect that they may have been in its interpretation. I agree that the ruling was wrong. I just think that the same ruling would have been called in any other CAA game.
(My emphasis added to the following with bold and brackets. Link to SB*Nation article in blue. )
The Targeting Rule:
"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."
This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet [Comment: Obviously not such a hit by Rubin], but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet. The next item in the rulebook, including the aforementioned "Note 1," which explains the many additional situations in which all kinds of hits are considered targeting:
"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. [ Comment: This is a circular definition or autological phrase and is a fallacy of definition. Elementary school children are cautioned against such in defining terms, words or phrases.].
Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
Whatever one's conclusion, I think we can all agree that the rule needs cleaning up and the CAA officials need to issue a clear and more specific explanation as to when they will apply the rule.
In the CAA, the refs apparently call it whenever there is significant contact with even the slightest helmet-to-helmet contact. Even though helmet-to-helmet contact is not a requirement, it has always been involved in the numerous calls that I have seen this year, both in CAA games and those in other conferences.
On top of that, the Review Team of the CAA, assuming that there is indeed a Review Team (I suspect that the whole review process may be a ruse to lend legitimacy to on-field calls.), has apparently made a decision not to ever overturn a targeting call. I have seen them overturned in other conferences, but never in the CAA.
The announcers were pretty bad in most respects (I didn't hear an explanation for half of the penalties called), but I think that the announcers were correct in questioning the legitimacy of the call as considered in light of the rule. What they failed to take into account is the way the rule is uniquely applied in the CAA. While I can find no language in the rule which would have justified the call against Rubin, CAA officials have been consistent in the application of the rule, however incorrect that they may have been in its interpretation. I agree that the ruling was wrong. I just think that the same ruling would have been called in any other CAA game.
(My emphasis added to the following with bold and brackets. Link to SB*Nation article in blue. )
The Targeting Rule:
"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."
This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet [Comment: Obviously not such a hit by Rubin], but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet. The next item in the rulebook, including the aforementioned "Note 1," which explains the many additional situations in which all kinds of hits are considered targeting:
"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. [ Comment: This is a circular definition or autological phrase and is a fallacy of definition. Elementary school children are cautioned against such in defining terms, words or phrases.].
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.
Whatever one's conclusion, I think we can all agree that the rule needs cleaning up and the CAA officials need to issue a clear and more specific explanation as to when they will apply the rule.
In CAA seems that O players are trying to take advantage of the rule by tucking. Will get even worse if common sense by refs doesn't start by NOT calling it when they do this. On other hand, if you're going to call penalty on D for hands to face, agree should apply to RBs, WRs, etc. as well. They get away with it constantly. No consistency or clarity. But then we know we get the "dregs" of the refereeing world in CAA and until that stops, there will continue to be horrible calls that make them the story of the game instead of the teams.
I have not seen this play on video...has anyone seen it at a link they can share?...would love to actually see the hit...
the official UR AD website has not posted a "highlights" package for the game...I realize there were very few Spiders highlights but thought they might give us something?
Go Spiders!
The Spider Gang Group Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/groups/127760237246257/
the official UR AD website has not posted a "highlights" package for the game...I realize there were very few Spiders highlights but thought they might give us something?
Go Spiders!
The Spider Gang Group Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/groups/127760237246257/
Question is, will the CAA take more time to look at it and not suspend Rubin for 1st half of NC A&T game? Since it happened in the 2nd half he would be out for 1st half of next game but they can reverse that.
I expect he will be out for the first half, yes. It's a shame. He was our most aggressive player on defense yesterday.
not an IPhone guru by any means, but I do have an IPhone 4...
use the "copy" feature of your phone to paste the link into an e-mail to your own e-mail address...then "copy" link from the e-mail and use the "link" icon above to "paste" the link into a reply message in the thread...
or you may just be able to manually type the link into the link icon field if that is easier.
thanks..would love to see the play if possible...most Richmond fans at the game were across the field from where the hit occurred...all I could see was Rubin coming like a missile and the ball flying up into the air...who ran it into the end zone?...I couldn't tell..
Go Spiders!
