Askelson Targeting Penalty

[kwcat]

You guys sound like the Griz fans that thought the Sac State defender hurt their QB intentionally.

No, not really at all. It was an odd place to slide on 3rd down for a running QB. I’m not saying it was for sure a deliberate play call, but there’s enough odd about it to not rule it out.

Not really. Contrary to popular belief, there isn’t a giant yellow line on the field for players to know where the first down is. I’ve seen it countless times where players have done that. Second, Barnum goes for it on 4th down a lot. You guys are overthinking a simple thing.

Exactly. It was probably a play designed to at worst get close enough to go for it on 4th down, he started the slide at the PSU 49. It would have been 4th and 3.

If you watch the replay, in real speed, he sees the two Bobcat LBs coming in hot and slides but it's clear he gets hit during the slide and he spins around from the contact from O'Reilly (who I assumed the penalty was going to be on). So it's not surprising the PSU bench erupted immediately because it looked bad in real time.

“Other people’s observations that don’t align with mine upset me and are worth arguing about on a fan forum.”

Looking at it again, there really was no reason to slide there and if he continues to run it’s a first down. I’m being converted to the It Was on Purpose squad and regardless of the lengthy explanation earlier on the thread, grazing the top of a helmet with the face mask is not targeting at all. Nolan got screwed and I’ll stand up for a Bobcat senior.

I'm not gonna argue with anyone. Nolan got screwed.

I agree the call is weak. According to a secondhand source, Nolan was told that it was a use of his forearm to the head. If you watch the replay, Nolan obviously tries to avoid much contact at the last second as his face mask grazes the quarterbacks helmet, and the left forearm hits the back of the quarterbacks helmet. Again, all looks incidental and looks like he tried to pull up and not deliver much of a hit. I think it was a crappy call.

[coloradocat]

The thing about targeting is that it's not designed to be fair. It's designed to protect the offensive player regardless of the situation. The rule isn't concerned with what the defensive player can/can't do in a particular situation. If he even comes close to hitting the ball carrier in the head, or appears to be aiming to, there's an opportunity to get flagged and the "review" will side with the offense. It's not so much that a particular call was wrong, but that the rule is.

[St George]

It is simple the Refs were trying to shave points to win their bets.

[tetoncat]

The thing about targeting is that it's not designed to be fair. It's designed to protect the offensive player regardless of the situation. The rule isn't concerned with what the defensive player can/can't do in a particular situation. If he even comes close to hitting the ball carrier in the head, or appears to be aiming to, there's an opportunity to get flagged and the "review" will side with the offense. It's not so much that a particular call was wrong, but that the rule is.

It is the application of the rule. Big Sky officials reviewing minor hits yet not reviewing some that are pretty clear on basic tv replay views. I don't mind calls on field in real time, then review to make sure before ejecting. But these calls with no flag. if it is bad enough to elect officials on field should see

[Catprint]

The thing about targeting is that it's not designed to be fair. It's designed to protect the offensive player regardless of the situation. The rule isn't concerned with what the defensive player can/can't do in a particular situation. If he even comes close to hitting the ball carrier in the head, or appears to be aiming to, there's an opportunity to get flagged and the "review" will side with the offense. It's not so much that a particular call was wrong, but that the rule is.

This.

The rule is very clear. Forcible contact does not have to be intentional or malicious. It can even be incidental. @kmax references the 'secondary source' that is was NOT the helmet or facemask grazing the QB, it was the shoulder. The rule is very clear that it can be forearm, shoulder, helmet etc to the neck. In addition, the rule basically states if the official on the field OR in the booth has any doubt, they MUST call targeting. It is NOT a foul that has to be confirmed. Rather, it has to be unequivocally denied in order to not be called a foul. I agree that the rule is the problem and to some degree the inconsistent application but the actual facts are fairly clear. IMHO, the hit meets the definition of the rule because the rule's intent is to protect the head and neck of defenseless players. The rule is actually intended to change the way coaches teach and players learn. We can argue it doesn't work very well or the human refs are too inconsistent or the reviewing official is too cautious but ultimately the rule is trying to save players from serious injuries by changing the way players tackle. It likely is no one's favorite rule but sure seems like it is having the desired effect.

[tetoncat]

The thing about targeting is that it's not designed to be fair. It's designed to protect the offensive player regardless of the situation. The rule isn't concerned with what the defensive player can/can't do in a particular situation. If he even comes close to hitting the ball carrier in the head, or appears to be aiming to, there's an opportunity to get flagged and the "review" will side with the offense. It's not so much that a particular call was wrong, but that the rule is.

This.

The rule is very clear. Forcible contact does not have to be intentional or malicious. It can even be incidental. @kmax references the 'secondary source' that is was NOT the helmet or facemask grazing the QB, it was the shoulder. The rule is very clear that it can be forearm, shoulder, helmet etc to the neck. In addition, the rule basically states if the official on the field OR in the booth has any doubt, they MUST call targeting. It is NOT a foul that has to be confirmed. Rather, it has to be unequivocally denied in order to not be called a foul. I agree that the rule is the problem and to some degree the inconsistent application but the actual facts are fairly clear. IMHO, the hit meets the definition of the rule because the rule's intent is to protect the head and neck of defenseless players. The rule is actually intended to change the way coaches teach and players learn. We can argue it doesn't work very well or the human refs are too inconsistent or the reviewing official is too cautious but ultimately the rule is trying to save players from serious injuries by changing the way players tackle. It likely is no one's favorite rule but sure seems like it is having the desired effect.

I am not sure it is having the desired effect. Still many concussion and head/neck injuries. QB and in some cases WR heavily protected while same hits on RB go unpunished. (Not defenseless I guess) but if a glancing blow from a defender is so damaging then call them all. 2 categories are being called. Blatant and clear targeting with helmet to helmet shots and these minor ones that are out in open that a replay person reacts on quickly. If that was in a pile or group of players it doesn't get reviewed.

Might just be the application, but I still have a hard time that the replay official can decide to review either of these two calls, yet decides not to review a called or possible fumble, int, or mark. Key plays rarely seem to be reviewed.

[cats2506]

The thing about targeting is that it's not designed to be fair. It's designed to protect the offensive player regardless of the situation. The rule isn't concerned with what the defensive player can/can't do in a particular situation. If he even comes close to hitting the ball carrier in the head, or appears to be aiming to, there's an opportunity to get flagged and the "review" will side with the offense. It's not so much that a particular call was wrong, but that the rule is.

This.

The rule is very clear. Forcible contact does not have to be intentional or malicious. It can even be incidental. @kmax references the 'secondary source' that is was NOT the helmet or facemask grazing the QB, it was the shoulder. The rule is very clear that it can be forearm, shoulder, helmet etc to the neck. In addition, the rule basically states if the official on the field OR in the booth has any doubt, they MUST call targeting. It is NOT a foul that has to be confirmed. Rather, it has to be unequivocally denied in order to not be called a foul. I agree that the rule is the problem and to some degree the inconsistent application but the actual facts are fairly clear. IMHO, the hit meets the definition of the rule because the rule's intent is to protect the head and neck of defenseless players. The rule is actually intended to change the way coaches teach and players learn. We can argue it doesn't work very well or the human refs are too inconsistent or the reviewing official is too cautious but ultimately the rule is trying to save players from serious injuries by changing the way players tackle. It likely is no one's favorite rule but sure seems like it is having the desired effect.

I dont really have a problem with the rule and what it is intending to do. I would maybe like to see ejections for the current game only and not carry over to future games.

What really bothers me is the inconsistent application of the rule, this call would never be made in a FBS especially in a P5 game. There is just too much money at that level to have kids sitting out unless it is really egregious. At the FCS level they seem to treat these players as expendable when they want to make a point. I am sure that part of the inequality is the quality of reffing and the quality and number of cameras available at our level also.

[kennethnoisewater]

A week ago I would have said this call would never be made in an FCS game.

I don't know if I agree that the level of football you say goes above and beyond (too far, IMO) to protect a player is the level that treats its players as expendable. I get what you're saying though. I think there would be more pressure at the higher level to not impact the game too much as an official. I think at the lower levels you still see things applied to the letter of the law, and at higher levels they're more willing to fudge on it a little bit.

I wish it would happen at the highest level though, just once. Then we'd definitely get some pressure to change that rule. Talk about this day and night on ESPN and every other outlet and the rules committees and the NCAA will be putting that at the top of their list to look at.

The rule (along with others around player safety) has worked, I believe that wholeheartedly. Most guys over probably 30 or 35 who played football can tell a thousand stories of themselves and other players getting knocked out or being loopy and getting right back in the game. I just don't think that's happening anymore, at least not anywhere close to the level it was. Sure, players are still getting concussions. But if we actually knew how many concussions guys were getting 20-30 years ago or more in games, I know it's considerably lower. That's a good thing. But I think a 15 yard penalty for a play like this is punitive enough to make somebody think about how they hit and how they tackle. And for the egregious hits, keep that as a two-half suspension. Chachere's own mom wouldn't say that was an egregious hit.

[PapaG]

It was a bad call then and is still a bad call today.

[kmax]

The thing about targeting is that it's not designed to be fair. It's designed to protect the offensive player regardless of the situation. The rule isn't concerned with what the defensive player can/can't do in a particular situation. If he even comes close to hitting the ball carrier in the head, or appears to be aiming to, there's an opportunity to get flagged and the "review" will side with the offense. It's not so much that a particular call was wrong, but that the rule is.

This.

The rule is very clear. Forcible contact does not have to be intentional or malicious. It can even be incidental. @kmax references the 'secondary source' that is was NOT the helmet or facemask grazing the QB, it was the shoulder. The rule is very clear that it can be forearm, shoulder, helmet etc to the neck. In addition, the rule basically states if the official on the field OR in the booth has any doubt, they MUST call targeting. It is NOT a foul that has to be confirmed. Rather, it has to be unequivocally denied in order to not be called a foul. I agree that the rule is the problem and to some degree the inconsistent application but the actual facts are fairly clear. IMHO, the hit meets the definition of the rule because the rule's intent is to protect the head and neck of defenseless players. The rule is actually intended to change the way coaches teach and players learn. We can argue it doesn't work very well or the human refs are too inconsistent or the reviewing official is too cautious but ultimately the rule is trying to save players from serious injuries by changing the way players tackle. It likely is no one's favorite rule but sure seems like it is having the desired effect.

Again, I will reiterate my point. Did some part of Askelson hit the QB's head/neck area? Yes, barely but yes. BUT the rule clearly spells out for a targeting foul that "No player shall target and make forcible contact." I get that the targeting foul is much broader in definition than we as fans tend to think of and that it is more than just the leading with the crown of the helmet. I also get that the idea of "forcible contact" is an incredibly gray, judgement call. But if anyone can tell me how on this play the contact between Askelson and the QB is in any way forcible I would astonished and ask them if they have ever actually watched let alone played football before.

[RockyBearCat]

Again, I will reiterate my point. Did some part of Askelson hit the QB's head/neck area? Yes, barely but yes. BUT the rule clearly spells out for a targeting foul that "No player shall target and make forcible contact." I get that the targeting foul is much broader in definition than we as fans tend to think of and that it is more than just the leading with the crown of the helmet. I also get that the idea of "forcible contact" is an incredibly gray, judgement call. But if anyone can tell me how on this play the contact between Askelson and the QB is in any way forcible I would astonished and ask them if they have ever actually watched let alone played football before.

EXACTLY!!! Yes there was contact with a grazed facemask and forearm/shoulder but nothing forcible about it.

[91catAlum]

The thing about targeting is that it's not designed to be fair. It's designed to protect the offensive player regardless of the situation. The rule isn't concerned with what the defensive player can/can't do in a particular situation. If he even comes close to hitting the ball carrier in the head, or appears to be aiming to, there's an opportunity to get flagged and the "review" will side with the offense. It's not so much that a particular call was wrong, but that the rule is.

This.

The rule is very clear. Forcible contact does not have to be intentional or malicious. It can even be incidental. @kmax references the 'secondary source' that is was NOT the helmet or facemask grazing the QB, it was the shoulder. The rule is very clear that it can be forearm, shoulder, helmet etc to the neck. In addition, the rule basically states if the official on the field OR in the booth has any doubt, they MUST call targeting. It is NOT a foul that has to be confirmed. Rather, it has to be unequivocally denied in order to not be called a foul. I agree that the rule is the problem and to some degree the inconsistent application but the actual facts are fairly clear. IMHO, the hit meets the definition of the rule because the rule's intent is to protect the head and neck of defenseless players. The rule is actually intended to change the way coaches teach and players learn. We can argue it doesn't work very well or the human refs are too inconsistent or the reviewing official is too cautious but ultimately the rule is trying to save players from serious injuries by changing the way players tackle. It likely is no one's favorite rule but sure seems like it is having the desired effect.

Again, I will reiterate my point. Did some part of Askelson hit the QB's head/neck area? Yes, barely but yes. BUT the rule clearly spells out for a targeting foul that "No player shall target and make forcible contact." I get that the targeting foul is much broader in definition than we as fans tend to think of and that it is more than just the leading with the crown of the helmet. I also get that the idea of "forcible contact" is an incredibly gray, judgement call. But if anyone can tell me how on this play the contact between Askelson and the QB is in any way forcible I would astonished and ask them if they have ever actually watched let alone played football before.

BINGO!

For·ci·ble: vigorous and strong; forceful:

[Camo_Cat]

I completely understand protecting players from injury as much as humanly possible. But to me, there should be better guidelines as to what is targeting and what is just a personal foul (late hit on the QB, roughing, whatever you want to call it.) You could see that Nolan was trying to let up as best he could. Keep in mind that when the QB starts his slide, and a defender has already started initiating his tackle, it's less than a second to try to adjust your body angle, speed, trajectory, etc. At worst, this should have been a 15-yard personal foul flag, and Nolan should have been allowed to continue.

[tetoncat]

In some of the FCS games there are so few camera angles many of these cannot be reviewed.

[RockyBearCat]

In some of the FCS games there are so few camera angles many of these cannot be reviewed.

Not here! Review official called it. No call on the field.

[tetoncat]

In some of the FCS games there are so few camera angles many of these cannot be reviewed.

Not here! Review official called it. No call on the field.

I understand that. My point is with all of our games tv coverage not just espn+ do we have more cameras than the other Big Sky teams. Which gives the review official more looks.

[catscat]

I completely understand protecting players from injury as much as humanly possible. But to me, there should be better guidelines as to what is targeting and what is just a personal foul (late hit on the QB, roughing, whatever you want to call it.) You could see that Nolan was trying to let up as best he could. Keep in mind that when the QB starts his slide, and a defender has already started initiating his tackle, it's less than a second to try to adjust your body angle, speed, trajectory, etc. At worst, this should have been a 15-yard personal foul flag, and Nolan should have been allowed to continue.

It wasn't bad enough to be flagged as a personal foul so I don't know how you review the play and penalize for a personal foul. Personally, I think that if it's not egregious enough to be flagged as a personal foul, it shouldn't be considered targeting. Officials on the field call a personal foul, then the play can be reviewed for targeting.

[BobCatFan]

Wtf………

The wad on tv. Why are they not using instant reply?

[BleedingBLue]

Wow a BSC crew just got a call right overturning targeting.

[PapaG]

Wow a BSC crew just got a call right overturning targeting.

Then late in the Griz-Davis game there is a clear targeting that even Marty saw and no review. The inconsistency…