Askelson Targeting Penalty

[MSU01]

If Askelson's hit really was targeting then it's clear that most fans (myself included) don't understand the various aspects that go into making that call. I know there's zero chance of this happening, but it would be cool if the Big Sky Conference put out a YouTube video every week with a referee breaking down all the targeting reviews from that week's games, explaining why targeting was or wasn't called in each case.

I also agree that two levels of targeting penalties would be a great improvement, one with ejection and one without.

[BelligerentBobcat]

I suspect if it wasn’t a QB sliding they wouldn’t have called anything. Still a terrible call.

[tetoncat]

I felt the same way at the game, after the game and today reading this post. Then, I decided to read the rules. To be honest, I have never read the rules on targeting, I simply listened to announcers and made assumptions that it always involved the crown of the helmet. Clearly, there was no leading with the crown of the helmet in this play.

SO why do we think it has to be the crown of the helmet? Because there are TWO articles involved with Targeting in the rulebook.

Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3:
“No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of the helmet.”

This article requires the crown of the helmet as well as the attribute of targeting and forcible contact. This is the common understanding we all know as targeting and applies to ALL plays and ALL situations. In this case, there was no forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. So why did they call targeting? That is because of article 4 of Rule 9, Section 1.

Rule 9, Section 1, Article 4:
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting.

Lets breakdown each component of this definition with regard to this particular play by Askelson. I am not an expert, I am merely trying to understand the rules and how the officials are interpreting the rules on each play.

(1) Target

In my understanding of the rules, Askleson was clearly targeting the player. Targeting does not mean breaking the rules or trying to hurt someone. It means there has to be one indicator of targeting. (and targeting in and of itself is NOT a foul as strictly defined. It is simply how the player leads to the tackle). There must be one indicator of targeting.

2) One indicator

There are four defined indicators of targeting. The one that applies in this case:
Leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack the head or neck area forcibly.

In the context of the rule, it means they are taking aim at the player that goes beyond a legal tackle by leading with the helmet, shoulder, etc. This in and of itself does not mandate a targeting call but there must be an indicator and in this case it is pretty obvious in the replay that Asekson is “leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm.” Before you say ‘but it was not intentional or he only grazed him,’ read on.

3) Defenseless player

This is a key part of article 4. Article 3 applies to all plays (leading with the crown of the helmet). However, article 4 only applies to defenseless players. There are 9 definitions of a defenseless player. We don’t need to review them all but one clearly applies

A quarterback …. who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first

This is a key point and one every player understands. Once a QB starts to slide, the play is essentially dead and the ball is spotted at the point of the foul. In this case, the QB has started his slide 1-2 seconds before Askelson gets to him. The player must do everything possible to avoid contact with helmet, shoulder, etc. once the QB has started the slide. This is likely the main reason for the call in this case. It is essentially the difference between a targeting call and a roughing the passing call when the QB is throwing the ball.

4) Forcible contact to head or neck

I agree this is the section of the rule that is an interpretation. It is clear the “targeting” is to the head or neck area. Is it “forcible contact?” I have watched the twitter video a dozen times in slow motion and while O’Reilly’s helmet (#43) obscures the view slighty, I do see the QB’s helmet move quickly down to the ground. That movement is almost certainly caused by contact by Askelson’s helmet or shoulders. I grant it is not severe or malicious or harmful… but the rules do NOT give the officials the judgement in this case. They have to call targeting. I believe this is what the officials saw in the replay.

5) Contact with helmet, forearm, hand, fist elbow or shoulder

See above. It is clearly his helmet or shoulder that initiates the contact. In fact, further review of the video seems to indicate Askelson’s left shoulder is likely the main point of contact and the cause of the foul, not the glancing blow by the helmet.

6) When in question, it is a foul

Finally, the officials are taught and it is in the rules that if there is ANY question about targeting, it is a foul and must be called. This leaves the officials with very little wiggle room. They must confirm or overturn the call. They cannot allow the call to “Stand”. In rules jargon, it must be clearly NOT targeting.

So my final answer?

1) The rule is designed to avoid injuries.
2) The penalty is severe so coaches change what they teach and players learn differently.
3) Is there some judgment in these calls? Most certainly
4) Was it targeting in this case? I believe it was because the QB was clearly a defenseless player and that is always a place where officials are taught to error on the side of safety.
5) Could the rule be improved? Certainly, and I there have been three or four changes to the rule since 2008. I think the main future improvement would be a two stage or two level application where one level is a personal foul and the second is disqualification.
6) Are targeting calls missed in a game? Of course. but that doesn't make it a bad call. Should they have called it on the Tommy Mellot hit last year at EWU? Maybe but I watched that replay 10 times and the player actually sailed over Tommy and Tommy made contact with the ground and that caused the concussion. But just because officials miss a call, it does not make it a bad call when they do one right. Four missed holding calls in game does not make the 5th time when the officials catch holding and throw the flag a bad call!
6) Do I like the call? Not a chance but I honestly think the officials were doing their job as best as possible and the rule is designed to make the call when there is any question.

I believe they made the right call. Feel free to disagree.

Great analysis. My only quibble would be "forcible" contact. It was clearly a glancing hit & not anything close to "forcible contact."

The first line of the rule is "...target AND make forcible contact..." (emphasis mine)

Askelson should have pulled up...if he had, he might not have been flagged...and coaches need to teach that better.

But it sure looks like a bad call to me.

How do you pull up? No way to stop there. Could try to go over which this looks like he did.
My quibble isn't so much with rule or intent, it is that much more agregious hits that don't get flagged or reviewed. Or we can pick these out for a review but not review possible turnovers or td's

[CatBot]

I suspect if it wasn’t a QB sliding they wouldn’t have called anything. Still a terrible call.

Agreed it was the slide. I would have been fine with a 15 yard penalty for hitting a sliding QB. Grumbled some, but then got over it. The ejection is an abomination of the rule book in my opinion.

[kmax]

I felt the same way at the game, after the game and today reading this post. Then, I decided to read the rules. To be honest, I have never read the rules on targeting, I simply listened to announcers and made assumptions that it always involved the crown of the helmet. Clearly, there was no leading with the crown of the helmet in this play.

SO why do we think it has to be the crown of the helmet? Because there are TWO articles involved with Targeting in the rulebook.

Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3:
“No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of the helmet.”

This article requires the crown of the helmet as well as the attribute of targeting and forcible contact. This is the common understanding we all know as targeting and applies to ALL plays and ALL situations. In this case, there was no forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. So why did they call targeting? That is because of article 4 of Rule 9, Section 1.

Rule 9, Section 1, Article 4:
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting.

Lets breakdown each component of this definition with regard to this particular play by Askelson. I am not an expert, I am merely trying to understand the rules and how the officials are interpreting the rules on each play.

(1) Target

In my understanding of the rules, Askleson was clearly targeting the player. Targeting does not mean breaking the rules or trying to hurt someone. It means there has to be one indicator of targeting. (and targeting in and of itself is NOT a foul as strictly defined. It is simply how the player leads to the tackle). There must be one indicator of targeting.

2) One indicator

There are four defined indicators of targeting. The one that applies in this case:
Leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack the head or neck area forcibly.

In the context of the rule, it means they are taking aim at the player that goes beyond a legal tackle by leading with the helmet, shoulder, etc. This in and of itself does not mandate a targeting call but there must be an indicator and in this case it is pretty obvious in the replay that Asekson is “leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm.” Before you say ‘but it was not intentional or he only grazed him,’ read on.

3) Defenseless player

This is a key part of article 4. Article 3 applies to all plays (leading with the crown of the helmet). However, article 4 only applies to defenseless players. There are 9 definitions of a defenseless player. We don’t need to review them all but one clearly applies

A quarterback …. who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first

This is a key point and one every player understands. Once a QB starts to slide, the play is essentially dead and the ball is spotted at the point of the foul. In this case, the QB has started his slide 1-2 seconds before Askelson gets to him. The player must do everything possible to avoid contact with helmet, shoulder, etc. once the QB has started the slide. This is likely the main reason for the call in this case. It is essentially the difference between a targeting call and a roughing the passing call when the QB is throwing the ball.

4) Forcible contact to head or neck

I agree this is the section of the rule that is an interpretation. It is clear the “targeting” is to the head or neck area. Is it “forcible contact?” I have watched the twitter video a dozen times in slow motion and while O’Reilly’s helmet (#43) obscures the view slighty, I do see the QB’s helmet move quickly down to the ground. That movement is almost certainly caused by contact by Askelson’s helmet or shoulders. I grant it is not severe or malicious or harmful… but the rules do NOT give the officials the judgement in this case. They have to call targeting. I believe this is what the officials saw in the replay.

5) Contact with helmet, forearm, hand, fist elbow or shoulder

See above. It is clearly his helmet or shoulder that initiates the contact. In fact, further review of the video seems to indicate Askelson’s left shoulder is likely the main point of contact and the cause of the foul, not the glancing blow by the helmet.

6) When in question, it is a foul

Finally, the officials are taught and it is in the rules that if there is ANY question about targeting, it is a foul and must be called. This leaves the officials with very little wiggle room. They must confirm or overturn the call. They cannot allow the call to “Stand”. In rules jargon, it must be clearly NOT targeting.

So my final answer?

1) The rule is designed to avoid injuries.
2) The penalty is severe so coaches change what they teach and players learn differently.
3) Is there some judgment in these calls? Most certainly
4) Was it targeting in this case? I believe it was because the QB was clearly a defenseless player and that is always a place where officials are taught to error on the side of safety.
5) Could the rule be improved? Certainly, and I there have been three or four changes to the rule since 2008. I think the main future improvement would be a two stage or two level application where one level is a personal foul and the second is disqualification.
6) Are targeting calls missed in a game? Of course. but that doesn't make it a bad call. Should they have called it on the Tommy Mellot hit last year at EWU? Maybe but I watched that replay 10 times and the player actually sailed over Tommy and Tommy made contact with the ground and that caused the concussion. But just because officials miss a call, it does not make it a bad call when they do one right. Four missed holding calls in game does not make the 5th time when the officials catch holding and throw the flag a bad call!
6) Do I like the call? Not a chance but I honestly think the officials were doing their job as best as possible and the rule is designed to make the call when there is any question.

I believe they made the right call. Feel free to disagree.

Great analysis. My only quibble would be "forcible" contact. It was clearly a glancing hit & not anything close to "forcible contact."

The first line of the rule is "...target AND make forcible contact..." (emphasis mine)

Askelson should have pulled up...if he had, he might not have been flagged...and coaches need to teach that better.

But it sure looks like a bad call to me.

Yep, just came to say this as well. I really appreciate Catprint going through and finding the full rule and breaking this down the way he did. Sounds like something I would do. That said though, the point that I would make is that while I get it doesn't have to be the crown of helmet and the other points Catprint makes shows why this could actually be targeting the key piece that I feel is missing from this play is the forcible contact. Yes the qb was a defenseless player. Yes had he made contact it could have been targeting. BUT HE WHIFFED! And that he did also I think goes to the fact that I don't think he could have pulled up. He was going to hit a runner. With the late slide the qb ended up going almost completely under the intended hit.

[blueandgoldblitz]

Being ejected for trying to miss the QB and still getting a glancing blow sets the precedent that if you don't think you can pull up, you might as well get your money's worth on the hit and absolutely blast the guy....

[KIX]

The way targeting is administered across college football is a debacle and an embarrassment. The officials yesterday were in completely over their heads.

The white hat official yesterday is a known bad actor. He's the worst ref in the big sky, and has been for probably a decade. Sadly, these types of calls are indicative of his lousy track record. Wish there was some way his ineptitude could be held accountable.

Completely agree. BSC refs should be evaluated and disciplined but I'm guessing that there is likely a shortage. As a result, that dude (and others) keep reappearing year after year.

[cats2506]

1. I think the player slid late. Askelson still tried to avoid contact. There need to be some better nuance when the QB slides late like that.
2. Where is the "forceable contact to the head or neck area" I'm just not seeing it.

Refs need to do better.
In my opinion they (different crew) missed this same call a week ago in the Idaho vs SAC game. They didn't even review it.
I do not believe that the BSC refs are biased, but they are inconsistent and bad.

[cats2506]

The way targeting is administered across college football is a debacle and an embarrassment. The officials yesterday were in completely over their heads.

The white hat official yesterday is a known bad actor. He's the worst ref in the big sky, and has been for probably a decade. Sadly, these types of calls are indicative of his lousy track record. Wish there was some way his ineptitude could be held accountable.

Completely agree. BSC refs should be evaluated and disciplined but I'm guessing that there is likely a shortage. As a result, that dude (and others) keep reappearing year after year.

Jim Crowley is not the worst ref in the BSC. he is not great but not the worst

[tetoncat]

Big Sky needs a Centralized review team so all reviews for this type of thing are consistent.

[CatBot]

The way targeting is administered across college football is a debacle and an embarrassment. The officials yesterday were in completely over their heads.

The white hat official yesterday is a known bad actor. He's the worst ref in the big sky, and has been for probably a decade. Sadly, these types of calls are indicative of his lousy track record. Wish there was some way his ineptitude could be held accountable.

Completely agree. BSC refs should be evaluated and disciplined but I'm guessing that there is likely a shortage. As a result, that dude (and others) keep reappearing year after year.

Jim Crowley is not the worst ref in the BSC. he is not great but not the worst

Who's the booth guy? Does anybody know? Two weeks in a row they've stopped the game from the booth without a flag on the field.

[cats2506]

The way targeting is administered across college football is a debacle and an embarrassment. The officials yesterday were in completely over their heads.

The white hat official yesterday is a known bad actor. He's the worst ref in the big sky, and has been for probably a decade. Sadly, these types of calls are indicative of his lousy track record. Wish there was some way his ineptitude could be held accountable.

Completely agree. BSC refs should be evaluated and disciplined but I'm guessing that there is likely a shortage. As a result, that dude (and others) keep reappearing year after year.

Jim Crowley is not the worst ref in the BSC. he is not great but not the worst

Who's the booth guy? Does anybody know? Two weeks in a row they've stopped the game from the booth without a flag on the field.

My understanding is each crew has their own booth guy. they are supposed to stop it for further review if the see possible targeting.

I have no problem with the booth calling for further review, but just because you stop to take a look doesn't mean that you have to make up "forceable contact"

BSC doesnt list who is the booth official but they do list who the rest of the crew is.

Crews of note
vs PSU we had Jim Crowley
vs WSU we had Kelly Holman
vs Utah Tech we had Jeff Rink
vs Stetson we had Gregg Robbins (I think he might be a new whitehat)
IU vs SAC was Jake Iverson (another new whitehat this year) missed a possible targeting call similar to Askelsons, no review

if you go to the stats on BSC
https://bigskyconf.com/stats.aspx?path= ... 23#results
go into box score then click on "View PDF" they list the officials for the game.
they seem to try to hide it. but the info is available.

[85CatGrad]

I was a part of the chorus of boo's on this one! Watched the replay 20 times when I got home and still can't understand what they saw. Did they have an angle that we couldn't see? Was it because the QB had just started his slide? I don't know, but after time to think about it, I can't imagine they were trying to be malicious in any way. It's just too bad that a young man is losing valuable playing time as a result of a very questionable call. The roughing the QB call, and PI were borderline, so those could easily have been no calls. I think having all 3 on the same series was tough to swallow, but hey we WON and that's what matters most in the end.

It's a damn tough job to be a referee in this day and age, and I know they are trying to do their best. So, it's probably time to ease up a bit and remember they are human too.

[AFCAT]

I was a part of the chorus of boo's on this one! Watched the replay 20 times when I got home and still can't understand what they saw. Did they have an angle that we couldn't see? Was it because the QB had just started his slide? I don't know, but after time to think about it, I can't imagine they were trying to be malicious in any way. It's just too bad that a young man is losing valuable playing time as a result of a very questionable call. The roughing the QB call, and PI were borderline, so those could easily have been no calls. I think having all 3 on the same series was tough to swallow, but hey we WON and that's what matters most in the end.

It's a damn tough job to be a referee in this day and age, and I know they are trying to do their best. So, it's probably time to ease up a bit and remember they are human too.

Not that it matters, but what do these guys and gals get paid? Just curious.

[85CatGrad]

I was a part of the chorus of boo's on this one! Watched the replay 20 times when I got home and still can't understand what they saw. Did they have an angle that we couldn't see? Was it because the QB had just started his slide? I don't know, but after time to think about it, I can't imagine they were trying to be malicious in any way. It's just too bad that a young man is losing valuable playing time as a result of a very questionable call. The roughing the QB call, and PI were borderline, so those could easily have been no calls. I think having all 3 on the same series was tough to swallow, but hey we WON and that's what matters most in the end.

It's a damn tough job to be a referee in this day and age, and I know they are trying to do their best. So, it's probably time to ease up a bit and remember they are human too.

Not that it matters, but what do these guys and gals get paid? Just curious.

Probably not enough to handle all the criticism they get when they make a bad call. You couldn't pay me enough to put on a zebra shirt and blow a whistle. No thank you!

[tetoncat]

I was a part of the chorus of boo's on this one! Watched the replay 20 times when I got home and still can't understand what they saw. Did they have an angle that we couldn't see? Was it because the QB had just started his slide? I don't know, but after time to think about it, I can't imagine they were trying to be malicious in any way. It's just too bad that a young man is losing valuable playing time as a result of a very questionable call. The roughing the QB call, and PI were borderline, so those could easily have been no calls. I think having all 3 on the same series was tough to swallow, but hey we WON and that's what matters most in the end.

It's a damn tough job to be a referee in this day and age, and I know they are trying to do their best. So, it's probably time to ease up a bit and remember they are human too.

Not that it matters, but what do these guys and gals get paid? Just curious.

Probably not enough to handle all the criticism they get when they make a bad call. You couldn't pay me enough to put on a zebra shirt and blow a whistle. No thank you!

PI and roughing are judgement calls. I could understand the PI but one step and push to chest on QB I just dont get how they are supposed to pull up.

The ejections are video review, should not be judgement and if no flag, should be clear and conclusive to change a no call on field like all other reviews.

[AFCAT]

I was a part of the chorus of boo's on this one! Watched the replay 20 times when I got home and still can't understand what they saw. Did they have an angle that we couldn't see? Was it because the QB had just started his slide? I don't know, but after time to think about it, I can't imagine they were trying to be malicious in any way. It's just too bad that a young man is losing valuable playing time as a result of a very questionable call. The roughing the QB call, and PI were borderline, so those could easily have been no calls. I think having all 3 on the same series was tough to swallow, but hey we WON and that's what matters most in the end.

It's a damn tough job to be a referee in this day and age, and I know they are trying to do their best. So, it's probably time to ease up a bit and remember they are human too.

Not that it matters, but what do these guys and gals get paid? Just curious.

Probably not enough to handle all the criticism they get when they make a bad call. You couldn't pay me enough to put on a zebra shirt and blow a whistle. No thank you!

Oh, I agree. When I was a kid, I actually got a 15 yard penalty in football and two technicals in basketball as a fan. I’ve mellowed a bit since then. I have a lot of respect for officials now but I do believe they should be corrected/educated by Big Sky management when they screw up.

[BleedingBLue]

I was a part of the chorus of boo's on this one! Watched the replay 20 times when I got home and still can't understand what they saw. Did they have an angle that we couldn't see? Was it because the QB had just started his slide? I don't know, but after time to think about it, I can't imagine they were trying to be malicious in any way. It's just too bad that a young man is losing valuable playing time as a result of a very questionable call. The roughing the QB call, and PI were borderline, so those could easily have been no calls. I think having all 3 on the same series was tough to swallow, but hey we WON and that's what matters most in the end.

It's a damn tough job to be a referee in this day and age, and I know they are trying to do their best. So, it's probably time to ease up a bit and remember they are human too.

Not that it matters, but what do these guys and gals get paid? Just curious.

$1550 per game (that's a $100 raise from the last few years). They pay all of their own expenses out of that as well. Depending on where an official lives, they net $600-$1000 each game. The one remaining BSC official that lives in MT is in Billings. Most times his flights are $350-$450. He only drives to Pocatello and will drive to Spokane if it's early in the year. They do have to be at game sites 3-4 hours early, so more often than not they are staying overnight at least 1 night, if not 2.

[GeauxCats41]

I blame Kenny Pickett for that fake slide… and now teams are running fake kneel downs. It’s not good sportsmanship. Leading to stuff like this where defensive players HAVE to make sure the QB is going down. Kneel downs are gunna start getting more push and shove again.

[Bocephus]

Total fake slide called by Barnum, trying to invoke a late hit. Who slides 5 yards before the first down marker on 3rd down. The way he slid so fast and immediate was telling. Vigen should have smacked him upside the head after the game.

Take your punk A$$ garbage football back to Portland.