why was the maimi coach

[fang]

so pissed off after the targeting call? Announcers seem to think he was yellin at our bench?

 

[Xenomorph]

I wonder that too... I was half wrestling with an Xbox one update while that was going on so I didn't pay full attention.. Did the Miami coach think it was a fumble that didn't get reviewed? Was he pissed over the ejection? And did they not tack on 15 yards for targeting? A co-worker swears they didn't...

 

[Junction John]

I think he was pissed at first, but upon seeing the replay I could swear he said, "Ok, yeah... good call".

 

[thf24]

They didn't add 15 yards for targeting because they'd already given 15 yards for the late hit.

I don't mean to stir **** up in the wake of an ugly bowl game, but did anyone else get the feeling they were intentionally trying to hurt Fitz? Their coach went ballistic over an easy targeting call, in which the defender clearly took aim and went for the head after Fitz was already almost stationary from the guy who wrapped him up. Also, there were at least four or five times where they grabbed and twisted at his limbs; way more than I think you could call incidental in the process of trying to bring him down.

 

[drt7891]

I'm not 100% familiar with the college rules...

so pissed off after the targeting call? Announcers seem to think he was yellin at our bench?

But he may have been pissed because Fitz had established himself as a runner. Targeting is NOT helmet to helmet contact... targeting IS forceable contact to the head and neck area... which that clearly was. However, in in high school (and in college, I believe), any established runner is NOT a defenseless player, even if it's the QB... And therefore , it becomes extremely difficult to call targeting on tackles because the ball carrier is not protected once established.

However, I fully believe this was targeting.

1. The fact Fitz was in the process of being tackled means he can't protect himself, therefore making a case he is defenseless. That goes for any ball carrier (I believe the college rule for being "defenseless" includes this)

2. Fitz helmet came off from forceable contact initiated by a hit using the crown of the helmet.

At the very least that's unnecessary roughness, which was the initial call, but I believe the review was handled exactly right. However, It would be very difficult to call that targeting in real time.

Also of note, changing the call to targeting would NOT give us an additional 15 yards on top of a UNR. It has to Be one or the other. The only way multiple fouls can add that kind of distance would be coupling two dead ball UNS conduct fouls together, or coupling a live ball and subsequent dead ball foul together. You can't get 30 yards by two separate penalties on the same tackle (or any two live ball fouls, for that matter... except unsportsmanlike conduct).

 

[FlotownDawg]

He doesn't have to be defenseless for it to be targeting

The NCAA clarified the rule this year. Any forceable contact to the head or neck area with any part of the body to a defenseless player OR leading with the crown of the helmet and hitting a non defenseless player in the head. Even though Fitz wasn't defenseless, the defender lowered his head and launched himself right into the side of Fitz's helmet with the crown of his helmet, so hard that it knocked his helmet off. Clearly a targeting foul, and a vicious one at that. It's a wonder Fitz wasn't hurt on the play.

I was confused as to why they only marked off one 15 yard penalty. The original penalty announcement was a unnecessary roughness call on #91, who dove on the pile late because he saw the ball laying there after Fitz had fumbled it. However, targeting was called on #15. But the referee did say that Fitz could stay in the game because his helmet came off due to the penalty. However, #91 didn't dive on the pile until after his helmet had come off. Unless the referee called the wrong number initially, it looked like two different penalties to me, and should have been marked off 30 yards.

 

[Drebin]

The NCAA clarified the rule this year. Any forceable contact to the head or neck area with any part of the body to a defenseless player OR leading with the crown of the helmet and hitting a non defenseless player in the head. Even though Fitz wasn't defenseless, the defender lowered his head and launched himself right into the side of Fitz's helmet with the crown of his helmet, so hard that it knocked his helmet off. Clearly a targeting foul, and a vicious one at that. It's a wonder Fitz wasn't hurt on the play.

I was confused as to why they only marked off one 15 yard penalty. The original penalty announcement was a unnecessary roughness call on #91, who dove on the pile late because he saw the ball laying there after Fitz had fumbled it. However, targeting was called on #15. But the referee did say that Fitz could stay in the game because his helmet came off due to the penalty. However, #91 didn't dive on the pile until after his helmet had come off. Unless the referee called the wrong number initially, it looked like two different penalties to me, and should have been marked off 30 yards.

I think the referee just called out the wrong number.

You are correct though...contact to the head or neck with the crown of a helmet, launched into the player, is automatic targeting. That one was pretty nasty.

 

[PBRME]

The announcers said he was possibly yelling at the ref standing close to our sideline.

 

[drt7891]

Gotcha. Did not know the rule had been clarified. In past years, players had to be deemed "defenseless" for targeting to apply.

 

[aTotal360]

I think he was mad that Fitz didn't sit a play because his helmet came off. I assume if your hat is forcibly removed, that rule is null and void.

 

[Junction John]

That rule would've helped in the Samford game too.

Also, our chin strap coordinator needs to be reprimanded. I've never seen one guy's helmet fly off so much. Maybe he needs to be demoted to cup jockey until he learns how to work a strap properly.