|
Replies: 68
| visibility 3,401
|
Orange Blooded [3384]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2737
Joined: 11/14/14
|
Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
4
Sep 5, 2023, 4:18 PM
|
|
The rule says, “ A targeting foul comes with a 15-yard penalty and, if the offending player is on defense, an automatic first down for the offense.”
So on the foul last night, even though it was a dead ball foul, Clemson should have retained possession with a first down.
Not that it would have changed the outcome of the game.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4498]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4161
Joined: 5/28/99
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
1
Sep 5, 2023, 4:20 PM
|
|
Yeah that was #########. Insult to injury. Woukdnt have changed outcome but that’s called that way for zero percent of other teams. Basically incentivizes headhunting on fourth down. Nothing to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11033]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4986
Joined: 10/31/03
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
1
Sep 5, 2023, 4:20 PM
|
|
But the second Cade's knee hit short of the line to gain, we became the "defense".
Unless you could argue continuation of the play. The whistle had obviously not been blown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6474]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10128
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
2
Sep 5, 2023, 4:22 PM
|
|
Had nothing to do with Cades knee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13530]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8951
Joined: 8/30/18
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
2
Sep 5, 2023, 4:26 PM
|
|
They ruled he was down and short of the line to make so the ball was turned over at that point, but the targeting just a second afterward cost Duke a penalty but with the ball. It was just weird looking because of how it happened and the timing of it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2861]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4311
Joined: 8/30/08
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
1
Sep 5, 2023, 10:40 PM
|
|
I think it is something that should be discussed a little more. IMO it should give the offense a first down. Bottom line Cade needs to be more aware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1959]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1650
Joined: 1/8/01
|
Re: So, if a receiver is interfered with and doesn't catch
1
Sep 7, 2023, 7:32 AM
[ in reply to Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty ] |
|
the ball, then it's a turnover on downs but the offending team gets the ball with a 15 yard penalty?
That's not how that works and I've never seen anything like it. I have seen, however, the same play resulting in a first down for the offense. It was total BS.
Now, I will say after re-watching the game, the offense was moving the ball at will and turnovers cost them. To say the offense sucked or certain players sucked is just Ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1959]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1650
Joined: 1/8/01
|
Clarification: That last line is not directed at you slwcu79***
Sep 7, 2023, 7:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: So, if a receiver is interfered with and doesn't catch
Sep 7, 2023, 8:55 PM
[ in reply to Re: So, if a receiver is interfered with and doesn't catch ] |
|
No, that's not the same thing. In your scenario, the pass interference occurs while the ball is still in play. The targeting foul on Klubnik occurred after the play was over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [140604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33881
Joined: 12/5/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9128
Joined: 8/31/15
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
3
Sep 7, 2023, 7:38 AM
[ in reply to Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty ] |
|
How in the world do we become the defense when Cade has the ball in his hands. We have all seen this on multiple occasions and it would have been 15 tacked on to the end of the run. Same as it would have been if it was a late hit out of bounds. BS call and had never seen that and I watch a lot of football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [132]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 150
Joined: 9/8/19
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
1
Sep 7, 2023, 5:12 PM
|
|
The rule was put into play a couple of years ago when Pitt QB Pickett did the fake slide against WF in the ACC Championship Game.
Once the QB initiates his slide the play is called dead. It sucks that it was 4th down otherwise Clemson ball 1st and 10.
Cade will learn from that and keep moving forward.
Go Tigers!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2862]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2698
Joined: 10/29/03
|
Being marked down when you start your slide
Sep 7, 2023, 9:13 PM
|
|
Was the rule long before Pickett pulled that fake slide stunt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1959]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1650
Joined: 1/8/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7497]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15422
Joined: 2/2/01
|
It was unfortunately the correct call based on the
3
Sep 5, 2023, 4:26 PM
|
|
way the rule is written. I would argue though that it very well could have made a difference had the rule and this call been different. We would have been inside the 30 with +5min and all 3 timeouts remaining for a D to get a stop. The game wasn’t over at that point had he just not slid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 220
Joined: 2/24/13
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
2
Sep 5, 2023, 4:27 PM
|
|
From my understanding bc he was sliding he’s down therefore considered a dead ball foul once the targeting happened
If he’d been diving head first for marker and the contact to helmet been made it then would be called a live ball foul and they tack on 15
Just a dumb rule to be honest, I’d never seen that call in that scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5961]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5688
Joined: 7/3/12
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
2
Sep 5, 2023, 4:36 PM
|
|
You are right, he was not aware of the first down marker and instead of diving for it which would have attained the first down, he slid a yard before the market. Yes the hit was late, but was after the play was technically over. It was a rough call, but Cade needs situational awareness and get to the line to gain. He had it, but gave it up with the slide. Not that this caused a change in outcome as Clemson simply could not score once in the goal line area
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
1
1
Sep 5, 2023, 4:33 PM
|
|
As much as it sucked for your guys, it was the correct call. In football, there are either live ball or dead ball fouls. As soon as a play becomes dead, anything that happens after that - even if it's a split second after - is a dead ball foul and does not affect the play. By rule, as soon as Cade slid (or "gave himself up"), the play became dead. The hit was a split second after that, and therefore was a dead ball foul. Since the result of the play was not a first down, possession goes over to Duke and they are assessed the dead ball foul.
It's a similar situation when a player scores a TD, but fumbles the ball a split second after crossing the goal line. The play becomes dead as soon as he breaks the plane, so a fumble a split second later does not change the outcome of the play.
It was the correct call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [79]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 81
Joined: 10/13/15
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 5, 2023, 6:54 PM
|
|
Absolutely ridiculous. If it was the correct call then the rule needs to be changed immediately. If the point of the slide and targeting rules each *individually* is to protect players, then the combination of them should be to protect players. This application incentivizes headhunting, as others have said. It was poignant that the Duke player was all smiles on the sidelines after being ejected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [346]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 310
Joined: 10/16/16
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
2
Sep 5, 2023, 7:02 PM
|
|
New rule for Clemson football: Never, EVER slide again. 😖
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1655]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1824
Joined: 12/9/15
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
2
Sep 6, 2023, 2:08 AM
|
|
then Cade gets injured not going down and you are right back here yacking about why didn't he slide, coaches suck, blah, blah, blah...
Cade lost situational awareness as to where he needed to slide to make the 1st down. Plain and simple.
Costly lesson learned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [406]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 687
Joined: 3/5/08
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 5, 2023, 7:06 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty ] |
|
So what if the call was a late hit OOB? Cade steps out BEHIND the marker, at which time the play is over but then is hit OOB? 15 yds is tacked on for a dead ball infraction but then Duke gets the ball? Is that what happens?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 5, 2023, 10:28 PM
|
|
So what if the call was a late hit OOB? Cade steps out BEHIND the marker, at which time the play is over but then is hit OOB? 15 yds is tacked on for a dead ball infraction but then Duke gets the ball? Is that what happens?
Yes. It's basically the same situation. Dead ball foul after a 4th down play ended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
RedDawg, this is BS
1
Sep 6, 2023, 4:48 AM
|
|
If this is your contention, The rule isn’t being applied appropriately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
No mike, it's not BS
1
Sep 6, 2023, 8:28 AM
|
|
I know you want to kill the messenger because I'm a fan of another team, but it was the right call. Unless you can give an explanation of why the refs were wrong. How was the rule not "being applied appropriately"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
I don't give a dog's nut as to who you pull for....
1
2
Sep 6, 2023, 7:12 PM
|
|
On the play, the refs contended that the QB could not carry on as an offensive player after the point in time that he had failed to make the 4th down - starting his slide before the line to gain.
It was ruled based on not being able to "project" beyond a certain point in time.
Yet they do exactly that all the time. All the time...
In particular, they do it when players catch passes on the OOB stripe. On plays where a receiver catches a ball and gets one foot down, often he will put the 2nd foot OOB. But....
the play doesn't end there. Ever. He has to carry out the catch by taking possession all the way to the ground. If he does so, it gets ruled a catch. If he can't take it to the ground, it's an incomplete.
So the completion is ruled AFTER he is OOB with the 2nd foot, and supposedly had already become an ineligible receiver.
Further, if it happened to be 4th down, it's worse. Supposedly, if he puts the 2nd foot down OOB, they should rule like Cade's slide that he is no longer an Offensive player when he hits the ground. Possession should turn over when the 2nd foot touches OOB. But the rule states if he carries the ball to the ground, even if he touches OOB, it's a catch and miraculously it's like he never touched OOB.
The Offensive player's "purpose" is weighted heavier than the legal interpretation or timing of an OOB stripe.
It's the exact same thing on his slide. Cade slid to protect himself and that rule should have carried out until the ground and beyond. He was a QB going down and should have been seen as a QB until such time as he was no longer in danger of getting hurt. Too bad that they over-legalized the play, and ended up circumventing the entire purpose of the sliding rule.
But hey; ACC refs are ######### at best, and it was no big surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You're grasping at straws here
1
Sep 7, 2023, 12:02 AM
|
|
A sideline pass play like you describe has little to nothing to do with the ruling on Cade's play.
And the refs did not "contend" anything. There was no issue of whether Cade possessed the ball. The play ended as soon as Cade began his slide, or as soon as his knee hit the ground, whichever happened first. That's the rule. At that moment the play is over. Period. The refs ruled correctly. And both his slide and his knee on the ground happened before the line to gain. Any foul that occurs after the play is a dead ball foul. It's always been that way. And it doesn't matter how quickly or how long after the play is over that a foul is committed. It's still a dead ball foul.
For example, let's say Cade slid short of the line to gain exactly the same way but was not hit. Play is over, ball to Duke. Then a few seconds later as he's getting up, a Duke player hits him and knocks him back to the ground. Obvious late hit. Since the play was well over and he didn't make the 1st down, ball to Duke and they are assessed the penalty. In terms of enforcing the rule, it's the exact same thing. The fact that it was a split second after the play vs a few seconds does not matter. It was still after the play.
You are trying to make an argument that is not there. It was the correct call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
You are missing the point of what the Refs contended
Sep 7, 2023, 5:49 AM
|
|
They said that a QB's role as an offensive player cannot go beyond the point that he is factually or implicitly down short of a line. That is what allows them to say that the possession had ended. Anything short of this cannot allow them to turn the ball over. If you miss this, you can't understand what either the refs or I am saying.
So again, per the refs, Cade's 4th down slide started short of the line, and thus turned the ball over. Any penalty after that on Duke is actually an offensive penalty.
They're wrong. Dead wrong.
As I have explained otherwise, catches along the OOB line show explicitly that Offensive plays CAN and DO, by rule, go beyond specific points in time and where boundaries are crossed. e.g. An offensive player actually is ruled to have caught a ball, EVEN IF he touches the OOB area before showing he can go to the ground with a catch. The OOB area touching doesn't overrule the LATER contact with the ground.
It ain't hard, Bub. This is just logic. And rules are meant to be logical, not legalized.
In the case of the slide, the rule is there specifically to protect the player, and thus should carry forth for as long as the player is at risk - regardless of down, distance, time, or other legal interpretation. Otherwise, you really don't care about protecting the player.
I'm sorry that you're wrong, but this isn't about Clemson. The refs didn't screw Clemson out of the game at all. They simply made a very public call in the wrong way. It ain't hard.
RedDawg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
LOL, dude you are in complete denial here
Sep 7, 2023, 11:01 AM
|
|
"They said that a QB's role as an offensive player cannot go beyond the point that he is factually or implicitly down short of a line. "
No. They never said that. After the play, the ref said:
"The ruling is the runner was short of the line to gain. After the play, personal foul, targeting, defense number 35. The ball will be turned over on downs. It will be Duke's ball, 1st & 10. The previous play is under further review."
They then reviewed the play and said:
"After the review, the ruling on the field of targeting is confirmed. It will be Duke's ball, 1st & 10, after enforcement of the 15 yard penalty."
They were correct.
Like I said earlier, all of your examples of the OOB plays have nothing to do with this play. Even in those examples, the play most certainly DOES NOT "go beyond specific points in time and where boundaries are crossed". That only factors into determining player possession. Whether or not possession is determined, the play STILL ENDS at the point he went OOB. But neither is a factor in this play. Cade maintained possession in bounds. The primary factor in this play is where and when did the play end. And by rule, it ended when he began his slide, or his knee touched (whichever was first). This is COMPLETELY logical and is how football has always been officiated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
Your verbal reasoning simply isnt good enough***
Sep 7, 2023, 11:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
And yours is?!?!
Sep 7, 2023, 11:47 AM
|
|
If you'd stop throwing out irrelevant examples, maybe you'd understand why it was the correct call.
Or you can choose to stay angry. Your call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
Red Dawg, I was Top 1% Verbal on both SAT and GMAT
Sep 7, 2023, 8:29 PM
|
|
which put my GMAT score higher than the average for all Top 5 business schools. I also had the 2nd highest score in my MBA class. If you need receipts, you just let me know.
My logic and verbal reasoning are impeccable.
I'm not angry at your failure to understand at all. I just get tired when you simply fail to understand what has been put in front of you. In fact, I would say that you're so intent on trying to be right, and insistent that Clemson failed, you probably don't even really read what I said at all. Actually, that would be a better answer for you.
And yes, you're still wrong, along with the refs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Red Dawg, I was Top 1% Verbal on both SAT and GMAT
Sep 7, 2023, 11:08 PM
|
|
Well congratulations. I'm very proud of you. But you are still wrong.
I'm not "intent" on being right. I am right. The refs were right. You are just being stubborn and ignorant about being wrong.
And I am certainly not "insistent that Clemson failed". I am on record here ~many times~ as saying I have wanted UGA to play you guys in the CFP. Last year. This year. Year before in 2021. Right now that seems pretty unlikely.
But you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
Like I said, your verbal reasoning isnt good enough***
Sep 8, 2023, 12:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19933]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16727
Joined: 11/28/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
No
Sep 8, 2023, 4:25 PM
|
|
Because the ball had yet to be marked ready for play, the term "Defense" was perfectly acceptable if not appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1321]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2316
Joined: 10/5/00
|
Dude...
1
Sep 8, 2023, 4:19 PM
[ in reply to You are missing the point of what the Refs contended ] |
|
How do you not get this? As soon as Cade touched the ground the play was done. And they were protecting the players by throwing a flag, ejecting the Duke player and penalizing them 15 yards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16158]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26449
Joined: 11/18/03
|
Correct, we had that exact scenario play out in the 2014 OB
Sep 7, 2023, 8:35 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty ] |
|
and they ruled the play ended when he went out of bounds on 4th down without crossing the line to gain and the late hit was a dead ball foul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
This isnt the same thing
Sep 8, 2023, 12:04 PM
|
|
A QB going OOB is not the same as the slide rule. That’s what people are missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yes it is
Sep 8, 2023, 4:27 PM
|
|
That is what you are missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [495]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 651
Joined: 11/6/15
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 6:11 AM
[ in reply to Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty ] |
|
I get what you are saying. The part I don’t like, is the actual penalty.
What the rules say is, in effect, it is 1st&10 Duke at the spot where Cade begins his slide the moment he begins his slide. Given that, why is it not 1st&25 15 yards closer to Duke’s goal line upon assessment of the personal foul? How is it any different than a false start? How does this penalty fit the offense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2420]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2471
Joined: 3/26/07
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 8, 2023, 4:42 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty ] |
|
If it’s a dead ball foul and short of a first down, why is it not 1 and 25? I’ve never understood that. If was any down but 4th, it would have been a first down. Hopefully we learned from all that happened in that game and we grow up fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 8, 2023, 4:43 PM
|
|
By rule, no possession can begin more than 1st & 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [22]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29
Joined: 2/1/04
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 8, 2023, 5:12 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty ] |
|
What about roughing the kicker on a punt. Once kicked the kicking team has relinquished the ball and is no longer on offense why does that personal foul go back to the offense? Is there specific language that returns the ball to the kicking team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3600]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 750
Joined: 9/18/20
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
2
Sep 6, 2023, 3:55 AM
|
|
Poor Cade, that will be his "Ray-Ray Moment". Looking forward to SATURDAY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [65530]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33280
Joined: 12/3/03
|
If the play is deemed over, then the player who made the
Sep 6, 2023, 8:36 AM
|
|
targeting hit would be neither fish nor fowl, offense nor defense. I believe that is the way the rule was interpreted. We were stopped short, so we were no longer on offense, and no longer had possession of the ball. So, technically, FSU was not on defense.
It sucks for us, but it was the correct call. I think the rules surrounding where the ball is placed when a QB slides are BS. But, Cade could have avoided all that if he had just dove ahead instead of sliding. We would have kept the ball, with 15 yards tacked on.
With the vibes around that game, I honestly don't think it would have mattered. We were destined to lose that thing. We were the Webster's Dictionary definition of "snakebit". I kept waiting for an airplane to crash onto the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
they were and are still wrong***
1
Sep 6, 2023, 7:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22370]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7152
Joined: 8/31/03
|
The rule was correctly applied. But, it is a dumb rule.
3
Sep 7, 2023, 7:23 AM
|
|
He was down. Play over. Duke ball. Then a penalty occurred.
It is the same thing, according to the rule, as if the penalty occurred 30 seconds after he was down. Say, he was down and as the players were jogging off the field one of the Duke players shoved a Clemson player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4308
Joined: 10/6/03
|
No, you are incorrect
1
Sep 7, 2023, 8:03 AM
|
|
If the defender hit him before he was down, it’s a first down Clemson.
The second he started his slide, he is down it’s a dead ball turnover on downs, and anything after that’s is a penalty against duke’s field position
I think it’s a dumb rule, but the refs were 100% correct in the application.
If you want to blame anyone blame Klubnik for sliding on fourth down short of the line to gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
wrong logic***
Sep 7, 2023, 8:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3663]
TigerPulse: 51%
Posts: 2388
Joined: 4/12/01
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 8:52 AM
|
|
First time I have EVER seen that call ruled the way the refs handled it
If that was right, hopefully they change the rule or inform the refs to properly handle it
Total bs we didn't get a first down
They benefited by one of the worst penalties that can really hurt a player. I was surprised he even got up and the Dook player was smiling gmab
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [305]
TigerPulse: 34%
Posts: 736
Joined: 10/19/08
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 11:24 AM
|
|
I'm not sure why it wasn't a first down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 11:45 AM
|
|
I'm not sure why it wasn't a first down.
It's because he was stopped short of the line to gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9128
Joined: 8/31/15
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 11:47 AM
|
|
Just strange I had never seen anything like that called in that way before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 11:49 AM
|
|
Can anyone here link a similar play that was called differently?
Seriously, football has always been called this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
Virtually every catch at the OOB line is called differently***
Sep 8, 2023, 12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
LOL
Sep 8, 2023, 4:04 PM
|
|
Give a link to a play that supports your ridiculous babbling. You can't so it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [340]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 3171
Joined: 6/12/20
|
That's the point, Mutt, virtually any sideline catch will
Sep 8, 2023, 5:59 PM
|
|
suffice. Sorry that it's too difficult for you to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [858]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/15/21
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 1:17 PM
|
|
I have expressed this take on a couple of threads now.
The enforcement of the rule was overly technical. If the offending player was 1/10th of a second earlier it would have been a live ball foul.
As others pointed out, the play was still in action and had no chance of being blown dead. To go back on review and parse it out like that when it was obviously the action of a live play is just over analysis of what happened. The player that hit him was doing what he did to STOP the live ball from moving ahead therefore it never should have been considered a dead ball foul. Intent should have been the determining factor not parsing out the exact fraction of a second that Klubnic touched the ground.
While it was an overly technical correct call it was the wrong call. Just Sayin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 1:39 PM
|
|
To go back on review and parse it out like that when it was obviously the action of a live play is just over analysis of what happened.
They did not go back on review and parse it out. They made the call before the review.
As soon as the play was over, you can see the line judge run up to spot the ball short of the line to gain, and then the ref said he was stopped short of the line to gain. All of that was before the review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [858]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/15/21
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 3:33 PM
|
|
But the targeting call was on the review not the downing. It was the review in which they decided he hit Cade a fraction of a second after he was down that made the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 3:49 PM
|
|
But the targeting call was on the review not the downing. It was the review in which they decided he hit Cade a fraction of a second after he was down that made the difference.
This is incorrect. Like I said in a previous response, both the targeting call, and the fact that he was down short of the line to gain were both announced by the ref before the review. The review just confirmed both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [858]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/15/21
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 3:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty ] |
|
What I mean by this is do you really believe that player was just pile driving a down player or attempting to make a play? My bet will be that he was attempting to make a play to stop a first down because he had no idea the ball was dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [236]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 614
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 3:53 PM
|
|
What I mean by this is do you really believe that player was just pile driving a down player or attempting to make a play? My bet will be that he was attempting to make a play to stop a first down because he had no idea the ball was dead.
In terms of how the penalty is applied, none of that matters. The play was dead by rule before the contact - regardless of what the defender thought or intended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [858]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/15/21
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 1:18 PM
|
|
I have expressed this take on a couple of threads now.
The enforcement of the rule was overly technical. If the offending player was 1/10th of a second earlier it would have been a live ball foul.
As others pointed out, the play was still in action and had no chance of being blown dead. To go back on review and parse it out like that when it was obviously the action of a live play is just over analysis of what happened. The player that hit him was doing what he did to STOP the live ball from moving ahead therefore it never should have been considered a dead ball foul. Intent should have been the determining factor not parsing out the exact fraction of a second that Klubnic touched the ground.
While it was an overly technical correct call it was the wrong call. Just Sayin'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4685]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2191
Joined: 4/21/21
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 3:43 PM
|
|
Any way you slice it the rule needs to be rewritten. It’s asinine. This can’t possibly be in line with the intent of the rule. Punishing the offense and rewarding the defense for cheap shots cannot be what’s best for the game. It won’t help us but I hope it keeps someone else from getting railroaded in the future.
Klubnik needs to be prepared to lower the shoulder on defenders when he isn’t absolutely sure he is beyond the line to gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 560
Joined: 5/19/12
|
Re: Clarification on the targeting rule penalty
Sep 7, 2023, 4:00 PM
|
|
I can't recall seeing it enforced that way and surprised it did not get more attention - would it have made a difference? Well it did the way it was called for sure and ended the game but we'll know what would have happened if we had kept the ball deep downfield with plenty of time. The one think I hope we learned is you better the first down by whatever means it takes to get there rather than sliding down. I don't believe Boyd, Watson or Lawrence would have been sliding down short in that situation. If you're the QB here, it comes with responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 68
| visibility 3,401
|
|
|
50
