|
Replies: 8
| visibility 1,955
|
MVP [538]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 35
Joined: 10/19/11
|
Targeting call on Skalski
Jan 2, 2021, 3:56 PM
|
|
Could someone explain to me how hitting the ball carrier in the mid section with your shoulder pad is "targeting"?
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Skalski was actually trying to hit with the shoulder,
Jan 2, 2021, 4:06 PM
|
|
but Fields turned at the last second and Skalski's helmet got into Field's side and lower back. It was clearly unintentional, but because Skalski bent forward so far in an attempt to lower the shoulder, he subsequently lowered the head, which met the criteria, by rule of one of the indicators of targeting, which requires intent. Since intent is required, and intent can't be known 100%, it is a subjective call, and rather than try to make that determination by looking at the play in it's totality, refs automatically default to the presence of any of the indicators as proof of targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2775]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1694
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Targeting call on Skalski
Jan 2, 2021, 4:06 PM
|
|
It was the crown of the helmet. I didn't know the wrinkle was there about hitting anywhere with the crown of the helmet.I don't know how the hell else you make that tackle from that position but to put your head down but he did get him with the helmet. When Skalski hits, he HITS! Most unfortunate--as the rest of the evening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Re: Targeting call on Skalski
Jan 2, 2021, 4:10 PM
|
|
He was trying to get him with the shoulder (clean tackle) and wrap up:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [222]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 389
Joined: 1/2/00
|
Re: Targeting call on Skalski
Jan 2, 2021, 4:29 PM
|
|
I was not aware that "intent" was a part of the targeting rule. If so, then my judgment is that Salski did not mean to spear the QB with the crown of his helmet. How do I or any official know what Skalski's intent was?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2248]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3227
Joined: 10/29/17
|
Re: Targeting call on Skalski
Jan 2, 2021, 4:36 PM
|
|
That was supposed to be a new wrinkle in how it is interpreted this year. Just made an already vague rule even more so. They give a list of things but say that it is not an exhaustive list. Basically it is what each crew says it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17522]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14120
Joined: 10/24/10
|
The dye was cast with Shaun Wade's ejection last year
Jan 2, 2021, 4:40 PM
|
|
Refs knew the history, made the prudent call, and minimized potential criticism of the call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Rule 9, Section 1, Article 4, Note 1 ....
Jan 2, 2021, 4:43 PM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting call on Skalski ] |
|
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.
So, for it to be targeting, the player must "take aim". Taking aim requires intent. It's clear to me that Skalski did not "take aim" with the crown of his helmet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3507]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4149
Joined: 9/27/14
|
Re: Targeting call on Skalski
Jan 2, 2021, 4:42 PM
|
|
It's getting to the point where we just play flag football or 2 hand touch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 8
| visibility 1,955
|
|
|
50
