ADVERTISEMENT

New Rule Impact of Tori Hunter Hit

beachcardinal

beachcardinal

All Star
Jan 30, 2006
22,088
1,522
113
Just reviewed the new rule on targeting. Under the new rule the play is reviewed in the booth even if not called on the filed. The coach does not have to request a review, like every other play in CFB it is reviewed automatically. A coach's review just focuses and allows time. Since there was plenty of time to review it we should assume it was reviewed in the booth:

"Instant replay officials in 2016 will be allowed to stop games and create targeting fouls in situations where a penalty occurred but was missed by on-field officials."
.
Also ,now incidental contact, even if hard is allowed. There must be leading with the head our use of the crown. When not called on the filed the evidence must indisputable.

I reviewed the play many times. It seems to me to be a lead with the helmet. Since the shoulder followed quickly, all I can guess is that the reply booth did not think is was indisputable. When I watched it live I didn't think it was penalty, but slow motion made it clear, at least to me, that the helmet came first. Must have just been to close for the booth or they were not used to the new rule and did not check it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yogind, eagledad04 and Maplerock
Big 12 in the review booth. At least that's what was said on TV. Probably doesn't mean much but I'm just throwing that out there. IMHO, I thought the tackler was leading with his shoulder but I didn't spend alot of my time replaying the hit. What's the use?
 
I just looked at it several times again, it is clearly a helmet to helmet hit. It's just that obvious
 
  • Like
Reactions: end_23
Personally, I think they've made the penalty so harsh it is difficult for the officials on the field or in the booth to call it. Maybe they need to rethink this and follow the logic of the NBA and have a flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 distinction, so that on a play like the Hunter hit, the penalty is called and yardage awarded, but no automatic ejection of the defensive player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yogind, ivan brunetti and IrishBlessings
Telx1 said:
Personally, I think they've made the penalty so harsh it is difficult for the officials on the field or in the booth to call it. Maybe they need to rethink this and follow the logic of the NBA and have a flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 distinction, so that on a play like the Hunter hit, the penalty is called and yardage awarded, but no automatic ejection of the defensive player.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
 
The penalty is that harsh because it is incredibly dangerous for both players and they can't fine players like the NFL. It was a badly missed call.
 
theskibro said:
If helmet meets helmet it should be cLled. Hunter did not get concussed from a shoulder. They missed the call
Click to expand...
that isn't the rule and it shouldn't be. helmets meet helmets almost every play, the rule is "lead with" or use the crown.
 
Telx1 said:
Personally, I think they've made the penalty so harsh it is difficult for the officials on the field or in the booth to call it. Maybe they need to rethink this and follow the logic of the NBA and have a flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 distinction, so that on a play like the Hunter hit, the penalty is called and yardage awarded, but no automatic ejection of the defensive player.
Click to expand...
I agree. Also it must be really hard for someone in the both to call it when missed on the field. I think they probably are very reluctant.
 
Toby Smart said:
Big 12 in the review booth. At least that's what was said on TV. Probably doesn't mean much but I'm just throwing that out there. IMHO, I thought the tackler was leading with his shoulder but I didn't spend alot of my time replaying the hit. What's the use?
Click to expand...
The problem with the Big 12 in the booth thinking is that the ACC was on the field If refs were that way why should any game even be close?
 
beachcardinal said:
that isn't the rule and it shouldn't be. helmets meet helmets almost every play, the rule is "lead with" or use the crown.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I know you already stated it, but in this case the defender clearly lead with is helmet, and more than that, he was targeting Hunter's head all the way. He made absolutely no attempt to go low. The ACC has already acknowledged they missed the call. I haven't heard if the replay officials actually looked at the play or what they thought of the hit. I'd like to hear the details on that.
 
beachcardinal said:
Just reviewed the new rule on targeting. Under the new rule the play is reviewed in the booth even if not called on the filed. The coach does not have to request a review, like every other play in CFB it is reviewed automatically. A coach's review just focuses and allows time. Since there was plenty of time to review it we should assume it was reviewed in the booth:

"Instant replay officials in 2016 will be allowed to stop games and create targeting fouls in situations where a penalty occurred but was missed by on-field officials."
.
Also ,now incidental contact, even if hard is allowed. There must be leading with the head our use of the crown. When not called on the filed the evidence must indisputable.

I reviewed the play many times. It seems to me to be a lead with the helmet. Since the shoulder followed quickly, all I can guess is that the reply booth did not think is was indisputable. When I watched it live I didn't think it was penalty, but slow motion made it clear, at least to me, that the helmet came first. Must have just been to close for the booth or they were not used to the new rule and did not check it.
Click to expand...
Per Brian Kelly it as not even reviewed by the B10 booth. "We don't understand why that wasn't reviewed by the Big 12," Kelly said.. "Kelly said they have sent the clip to the ACC and got confirmation that it was most likely targeting"
 
Big 12 replay guys looked at each other and said: "Screw Notre Dame...if the ACC guys missed it we are not helping the Irish win."

No other explanation makes any sense---it WAS targeting. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IrishBlessings
irish4life888 said:
Per Brian Kelly it as not even reviewed by the B10 booth. "We don't understand why that wasn't reviewed by the Big 12," Kelly said.. "Kelly said they have sent the clip to the ACC and got confirmation that it was most likely targeting"
Click to expand...
Well, "most likely targeting.." would not be overturned by the replay booth.
 
beachcardinal said:
Well, "most likely targeting.." would not be overturned by the replay booth.
Click to expand...
I thought that was the job of the replay booth, is to overturn bad calls. Also, BK seems to think that it wasn't even reviewed by the B10 officials. I don't see much coming out of it either way.
 
I didn't tape the game, but just what I saw as I watch the play and the replays from the broadcasters. It appeared o me that
Hunter had caught the ball, both feet were planted in the end zone, and then the hit to the head caused the concussion and the resulting losing control of the ball.
It should have been a TD , and a penalty on the illegal hit ?
 
Longhorn here,

Wanted to give my two cents and then you can ban me.
1. he led with shoulder, and impacted the shoulder first, helmet contact was incidental. Was trying to knock the ball out and receiver was going to the ground. Was clearly not trying to target the receiver high.
2. If you are going to complain about this play, how about the CLEARLY INTENTIONAL targeting on Shane Beuchele's interception? The defender is rushing Beuchele, has his head up and can clearly see Beuchele release the ball, takes a step or two and then launches the crown of his helmet into Beuchele's. Call that, and Longhorn's have a first down and no easy score for ND.

Fair is fair, right?
 
beachcardinal said:
Well, "most likely targeting.." would not be overturned by the replay booth.
Click to expand...
ACC officials meekly admitting their officials missed a call does not mean the officials in the booth would not have overturned the call if they had actually looked at the replay.
 
King IDMAS said:
Longhorn here,

Wanted to give my two cents and then you can ban me.
1. he led with shoulder, and impacted the shoulder first, helmet contact was incidental. Was trying to knock the ball out and receiver was going to the ground. Was clearly not trying to target the receiver high.
2. If you are going to complain about this play, how about the CLEARLY INTENTIONAL targeting on Shane Beuchele's interception? The defender is rushing Beuchele, has his head up and can clearly see Beuchele release the ball, takes a step or two and then launches the crown of his helmet into Beuchele's. Call that, and Longhorn's have a first down and no easy score for ND.

Fair is fair, right?
Click to expand...
Why should you be banned? There's no rule for being blind, obtuse, and completely wrong! Go look at the video again, it was helmet to helmet, then followed through with the shoulder. Even if you were right, which you are not, you can target with a shoulder. Here's the rule for you so you can be more informed in the future.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
 
irish4life888 said:
Actually, there is a new rule this year that the replay both can review and call a targeting foul.
Click to expand...
Yes that is what my post said, but the standard is different. Under the rule the booth is only supposed to call egregious examples. Most likely wouldn't meet that standard.

"The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge."
 
Telx1 said:
Personally, I think they've made the penalty so harsh it is difficult for the officials on the field or in the booth to call it.
Click to expand...

This is GREAT point and one that I had not thought of.
My 2 cents..... I DO think it was a hit to the head of a defenseless player, but I DO NOT think he deliberately targeted him with ill intent.

The fact is the Texas player was simply trying to make a play and happen to hit the head.
Guilty of breaking the rule? I say yes.
Deserved to be ejected, I say No.

Telx1 makes the best point.
The penalty is so harsh, that I refs may have a hard time calling it.
There should be 2 rules.
Hit above the shoulders on a defenseless player. 10 yards, first down.
Targeting, (for when a player actually does) 15 yards, first down, ejection.
 
I absolutely agree that the rule is horribly written and enforced.
If you look at another angle of the Hunter play-not the back side snapshot after the initial contact, it was shoulder to shoulder. The shoulders compressed and then helmets made contact.

Further, why has no one addressed my second point?

That one was obviously an intentional hit after ball was released. ND players head was up to see the pass, then lowered and launched into QB.
 
King IDMAS said:
Longhorn here,

Wanted to give my two cents and then you can ban me.
1. he led with shoulder, and impacted the shoulder first, helmet contact was incidental. Was trying to knock the ball out and receiver was going to the ground. Was clearly not trying to target the receiver high.
2. If you are going to complain about this play, how about the CLEARLY INTENTIONAL targeting on Shane Beuchele's interception? The defender is rushing Beuchele, has his head up and can clearly see Beuchele release the ball, takes a step or two and then launches the crown of his helmet into Beuchele's. Call that, and Longhorn's have a first down and no easy score for ND.

Fair is fair, right?
Click to expand...
Here is the hit on Shane Buechelle
 
beachcardinal said:
Yes that is what my post said, but the standard is different. Under the rule the booth is only supposed to call egregious examples. Most likely wouldn't meet that standard.

"The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge."
Click to expand...
The rule book doesn't define or give examples of "egregious" which was a poor decision on their part when they wrote the rule, but given that the defensive player clearly met both separate definitions of targeting, the the foul itself was obvious (that would fit my definition of "egregious" in this instance), and that the refs are supposed to call targeting even when they have doubt but they suspect targeting, I'd say all three factors clearly add up to "egregious" and if it doesn't then they should probably get rid of that new rule altogether because I don't know how much more clear a targeting foul could be to meet that vague standard.
 
Posted on the other thread...

In terms of enforcing the rule, it does not matter whether an injury occurred or not.

Again, no one wanted to see Hunter injured.

If the Hunter hit was targeting, then the Beuchele hit certainly was, too.
 
beachcardinal said:
Just reviewed the new rule on targeting. Under the new rule the play is reviewed in the booth even if not called on the filed. The coach does not have to request a review, like every other play in CFB it is reviewed automatically. A coach's review just focuses and allows time. Since there was plenty of time to review it we should assume it was reviewed in the booth:

"Instant replay officials in 2016 will be allowed to stop games and create targeting fouls in situations where a penalty occurred but was missed by on-field officials."
.
Also ,now incidental contact, even if hard is allowed. There must be leading with the head our use of the crown. When not called on the filed the evidence must indisputable.

I reviewed the play many times. It seems to me to be a lead with the helmet. Since the shoulder followed quickly, all I can guess is that the reply booth did not think is was indisputable. When I watched it live I didn't think it was penalty, but slow motion made it clear, at least to me, that the helmet came first. Must have just been to close for the booth or they were not used to the new rule and did not check it.
Click to expand...
Quit with your wishy washy jargon. It doesn't have to be helmet to helmet to be targeting, even though in this case it was h2h. Do better research.
 
beachcardinal said:
Yes that is what my post said, but the standard is different. Under the rule the booth is only supposed to call egregious examples. Most likely wouldn't meet that standard.

"The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge."
Click to expand...
Ok, that is quite a gray area, but they should have at least reviewed it. I stand by that it was targeting and it was missed.
 
Would you also agree, then, that the ND lineman's hit on UT QB was targeting?

It would have negated the interception and a ND TD.
 
Why is everyone obsessed with helmet to helmet. Here is the rule that was clearly broke

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)


You don't have to just lead with the helmet. He hit a defenseless receiver in the neck/head and knocked him out. CLEAR AS DAY. As others have said, someone should be fired, and ND should not do another game with any involvement of big 12 officiating or replay.
 
beachcardinal said:
that isn't the rule and it shouldn't be. helmets meet helmets almost every play, the rule is "lead with" or use the crown.
Click to expand...
WRONG......... see above, you just are touching on part of the rule
 
Last edited:
King IDMAS said:
Would you also agree, then, that the ND lineman's hit on UT QB was targeting?

It would have negated the interception and a ND TD.
Click to expand...

No......... the key with targeting is two points.

1. if a player leads with his crown of the helmet at anytime it is targeting. ND Player did not lead with crown so that was not a reason for penalty.

2. A hit to the head of a defenseless player with head, hand, shoulder, etc.... Texas QB was not defenseless.
 
What does it matter if the defender let with his helmet or his shoulder? He still hit Hunter, a defenseless receiver, in the GD head! IMO hitting someone in the head with your shoulder is much worse then head-to-head! The Big 12 refs (and the ACC refs also) wet the bed on that call. Cost the Irish 7 points!
 
Get Nasty said:
No......... the key with targeting is two points.

1. if a player leads with his crown of the helmet at anytime it is targeting. ND Player did not lead with crown so that was not a reason for penalty.

2. A hit to the head of a defenseless player with head, hand, shoulder, etc.... Texas QB was not defenseless.
Click to expand...

The ND player absolutely led with the crown of his helmet. He put his head down to make contact.

A QB that has just released a pass is absolutely a defenseless player.

These types of rules were initially instituted to protect the qbs.
 
King IDMAS said:
The ND player absolutely led with the crown of his helmet. He put his head down to make contact.

A QB that has just released a pass is absolutely a defenseless player.

These types of rules were initially instituted to protect the qbs.
Click to expand...

No a qb is only defenseless if it's a late hit, that could be your argument that he was hit late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tyler James

Division I Board of Directors ratifies transfer, NIL rule changes

Replies
0
Views
393
The Insider Lounge
Tyler James
Tyler James
N

College bowl games pay out

Replies
1
Views
409
Under the Dome
ivan brunetti
ivan brunetti
J

South Carolina and LSU

Replies
14
Views
475
The Insider Lounge
skillzz32
skillzz32
Eric Hansen

Football Just talked to Riley Leonard about his second surgery, recovery timeline

Replies
1
Views
358
The Insider Lounge
Eric Hansen
Eric Hansen
Eric Hansen

Basketball WBB: The latest on Notre Dame from injuries to portal to recruiting

Replies
26
Views
3K
The Insider Lounge
JY09
J
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back