It seems like the targeting call on Perry Young has been largely accepted as correct. The horrible homer TV commentators certainly thought there was no question it was targeting. I found the following explanation of the rule in an SB nation article--after an admittedly short google search I couldn't find the rule on the NCAA site, but the article claims this is the actual rule :

In college football, these things are targeting fouls, per the NCAA’s rulebook:
1. Making “forcible contact against an opponent with the helmet crown,” or the top of the tackler’s head.
2. Making “forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.”

The commentators were certain Young's hit was targeting on both accounts. I believe the hit was clearly shoulder (Young) to helmet (Ragland) so targeting instance 1 would not apply. I've rewatched it several times and feel this is fairly clear. If this is the case, the question becomes whether Ragland was a "defenseless "opponent" at the time. From the same SB Nation article, the only two instances of defenseless opponent that might apply are against a player:

-who has the ball and has had his forward progress stopped
-who has the ball and is sliding or given himself up

Ragland was essentially a running back at the time and I don't think either of these apply. Another tackler was engaged, but his forward progress was not stopped. He definitely wasn't sliding. Obviously, we won and I'm EXTREMELY happy about that. But, loosing Young for the first half of the Navy game is a huge loss. Seems like this would have attracted more attention. I believe there is a conference review and I really hoped this would be overturned, but I've heard no mention of it being disputed. Am I missing something? Also, it's hard not to recall the hit against Gunner 2 seasons ago in Memphis which was overturned because he was a runner and the guy hit his head with his shoulder. If anyone has a better understanding or explanation, I'd greatly appreciate hearing it.

(09-21-2017 09:10 AM)TXBearcat Wrote:  It seems like the targeting call on Perry Young has been largely accepted as correct. The horrible homer TV commentators certainly thought there was no question it was targeting. I found the following explanation of the rule in an SB nation article--after an admittedly short google search I couldn't find the rule on the NCAA site, but the article claims this is the actual rule :

In college football, these things are targeting fouls, per the NCAA’s rulebook:
1. Making “forcible contact against an opponent with the helmet crown,” or the top of the tackler’s head.
2. Making “forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.”

The commentators were certain Young's hit was targeting on both accounts. I believe the hit was clearly shoulder (Young) to helmet (Ragland) so targeting instance 1 would not apply. I've rewatched it several times and feel this is fairly clear. If this is the case, the question becomes whether Ragland was a "defenseless "opponent" at the time. From the same SB Nation article, the only two instances of defenseless opponent that might apply are against a player:

-who has the ball and has had his forward progress stopped
-who has the ball and is sliding or given himself up

Ragland was essentially a running back at the time and I don't think either of these apply. Another tackler was engaged, but his forward progress was not stopped. He definitely wasn't sliding. Obviously, we won and I'm EXTREMELY happy about that. But, loosing Young for the first half of the Navy game is a huge loss. Seems like this would have attracted more attention. I believe there is a conference review and I really hoped this would be overturned, but I've heard no mention of it being disputed. Am I missing something? Also, it's hard not to recall the hit against Gunner 2 seasons ago in Memphis which was overturned because he was a runner and the guy hit his head with his shoulder. If anyone has a better understanding or explanation, I'd greatly appreciate hearing it.

You make some excellent points. Watching the telecast with my UC fan glasses on I could have certainly made the case it was shoulder to helmet. Given the low quality of the telecast with few cameras for different replay angles it was hard to make a definitive judgment. If targeting is blatant, I have no problem with the disqualification rule. If it's questionable after a more thorough review, that next game suspension is a high price to pay for the player and his team.

Yeah I thought it was a tough call. Obviously they've been erring on the safe side for a while now so I really don't have a problem with the call, I just feel bad for Perry. I think it was 3rd down on that play and Ragland was trying to pick up the first with his feet. Perry went to lay a hit in a manner that would stop Ragland's forward progress immediately and ensure he couldn't reach the line to gain, but I think Ragland was simultaneously being pulled down from behind and Perry's target zone ended up being too high for that kind of hit.

Just a play bang-bang with two guys going all out for every inch on the football field. Unfortunate for Perry as I don't think it was malicious...You can say well yeah but he should be tackling with his head up, but when you do that you risk the ball carrier being able to fall forward and gain extra yardage. 3rd down in a close game, you can't really blame Perry.

But yeah, the automatic ejection thing is bogus...Dudes are flying around, changing pad levels....review officials need to use some discretion.

(09-21-2017 09:22 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  Yeah I thought it was a tough call. Obviously they've been erring on the safe side for a while now so I really don't have a problem with the call, I just feel bad for Perry. I think it was 3rd down on that play and Ragland was trying to pick up the first with his feet. Perry went to lay a hit in a manner that would stop Ragland's forward progress immediately and ensure he couldn't reach the line to gain, but I think Ragland was simultaneously being pulled down from behind and Perry's target zone ended up being too high for that kind of hit.

Just a play bang-bang with two guys going all out for every inch on the football field. Unfortunate for Perry as I don't think it was malicious...You can say well yeah but he should be tackling with his head up, but when you do that you risk the ball carrier being able to fall forward and gain extra yardage. 3rd down in a close game, you can't really blame Perry.

But yeah, the automatic ejection thing is bogus...Dudes are flying around, changing pad levels....review officials need to use some discretion.

Agreed. Think it was the type of play that doesn't get much notice if it's a running back running up the midddle. I had the broadcast on an espn auxiliary channel through DIRECTV so the picture was actually good ( not ESPN 3) and it was definitely shoulder to helmet.

I thought it was clearly targeting. Ragland was already tackled and Young popped him in the head. To me that is a no brainer.

(09-21-2017 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I thought it was clearly targeting. Ragland was already tackled and Young popped him in the head. To me that is a no brainer.

Not all hits to the head are targeting. If they were, players would get ejected on a lot of running plays. I agree that it had the look of targeting, and that is why I looked more closely at the rule. I've always just gone off the look of the play and the bullet point graphics the tv puts up, and I agree with the call more often than not. I really don't believe this was targeting by the rule. While Ragland was being tackled, his forward progress had not been stopped and Young's hit kept him from progressing or reaching for likely another yard.

(09-21-2017 09:53 AM)TXBearcat Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I thought it was clearly targeting. Ragland was already tackled and Young popped him in the head. To me that is a no brainer.

Not all hits to the head are targeting. If they were, players would get ejected on a lot of running plays. I agree that it had the look of targeting, and that is why I looked more closely at the rule. I've always just gone off the look of the play and the bullet point graphics the tv puts up, and I agree with the call more often than not. I really don't believe this was targeting by the rule. While Ragland was being tackled, his forward progress had not been stopped and Young's hit kept him from progressing or reaching for likely another yard.

I know the rule. I thought Ragland was defenseless as he was tackled. I thought the hit to the head was unnecessary given defenseless nature of the quarterback and the fact that he was already tackled. To me it was textbook targeting and I'd expect it to be called if are players was in the same situation.

(09-21-2017 09:58 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 09:53 AM)TXBearcat Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I thought it was clearly targeting. Ragland was already tackled and Young popped him in the head. To me that is a no brainer.

Not all hits to the head are targeting. If they were, players would get ejected on a lot of running plays. I agree that it had the look of targeting, and that is why I looked more closely at the rule. I've always just gone off the look of the play and the bullet point graphics the tv puts up, and I agree with the call more often than not. I really don't believe this was targeting by the rule. While Ragland was being tackled, his forward progress had not been stopped and Young's hit kept him from progressing or reaching for likely another yard.

I know the rule. I thought Ragland was defenseless as he was tackled. I thought the hit to the head was unnecessary given defenseless nature of the quarterback and the fact that he was already tackled. To me it was textbook targeting and I'd expect it to be called if are players was in the same situation.

Oh, I'm sure I'd expect it to be called if the roles were reversed--still think the hit on Gunner in Memphis was targeting as he was sliding (they obviously interpreted him to have not given himself up). Agree to disagree--I thought he was still making forward progress and being tackled alone doesn't make him defenseless. Nor does him being the qb when he is running past the line of scrimmage.

(09-21-2017 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I thought it was clearly targeting. Ragland was already tackled and Young popped him in the head. To me that is a no brainer.

Exactly...if a player is down by contact he is by rule considered to be defenseless, and he obviously contacted Raglund at the head level. Clear cut targeting and have no issue with the call. It's a stupid and dangerous play and he shouldn't be doing it....the "reaction time" argument has no business here, as it was clear that the man was wrapped and down.

The inconsistency of targeting calls drives me nuts. I don't think the call on Perry was a good one. Furthermore, you're taught to tackle with your head up and across the ball carriers body - so to a degree - tacklers are going to lead with their head to get in good form tackling position.

You can't tell a tacklers intent and to me that's the issue with this rule. The rule is in place to prevent cheap shots, guys going for kill shots to the head, and for those types of plays the rule is correct. But I'm seeing the majority of these targeting calls going against guys just trying to make a good, clean tackle and I think 15 yards, an ejection, and missing the next half is out of whack.

(09-21-2017 10:47 AM)AABearcat Wrote:  The inconsistency of targeting calls drives me nuts. I don't think the call on Perry was a good one. Furthermore, you're taught to tackle with your head up and across the ball carriers body - so to a degree - tacklers are going to lead with their head to get in good form tackling position.

You can't tell a tacklers intent and to me that's the issue with this rule. The rule is in place to prevent cheap shots, guys going for kill shots to the head, and for those types of plays the rule is correct. But I'm seeing the majority of these targeting calls going against guys just trying to make a good, clean tackle and I think 15 yards, an ejection, and missing the next half is out of whack.

This is exactly what he did. The play was stopped. Ragland was down, and he launched at his head with his shoulder. There are plenty of times I get upset with these type of calls, but this was a cheap shot directly to the head.

(09-21-2017 10:54 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 10:47 AM)AABearcat Wrote:  The inconsistency of targeting calls drives me nuts. I don't think the call on Perry was a good one. Furthermore, you're taught to tackle with your head up and across the ball carriers body - so to a degree - tacklers are going to lead with their head to get in good form tackling position.

You can't tell a tacklers intent and to me that's the issue with this rule. The rule is in place to prevent cheap shots, guys going for kill shots to the head, and for those types of plays the rule is correct. But I'm seeing the majority of these targeting calls going against guys just trying to make a good, clean tackle and I think 15 yards, an ejection, and missing the next half is out of whack.

This is exactly what he did. The play was stopped. Ragland was down, and he launched at his head with his shoulder. There are plenty of times I get upset with these type of calls, but this was a cheap shot directly to the head.

Exactly...I don't see where there could be any argument about this one. It's about as clear cut of a case as possible for targeting after a play on a defenseless player.

(09-21-2017 10:54 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 10:47 AM)AABearcat Wrote:  The inconsistency of targeting calls drives me nuts. I don't think the call on Perry was a good one. Furthermore, you're taught to tackle with your head up and across the ball carriers body - so to a degree - tacklers are going to lead with their head to get in good form tackling position.

You can't tell a tacklers intent and to me that's the issue with this rule. The rule is in place to prevent cheap shots, guys going for kill shots to the head, and for those types of plays the rule is correct. But I'm seeing the majority of these targeting calls going against guys just trying to make a good, clean tackle and I think 15 yards, an ejection, and missing the next half is out of whack.

This is exactly what he did. The play was stopped. Ragland was down, and he launched at his head with his shoulder. There are plenty of times I get upset with these type of calls, but this was a cheap shot directly to the head.

I'll have to go back and look at it, I admit I haven't look at it since Saturday night. At first glance, I thought it was a bad call. Pretty soon you'll be able to touch a guy with both hands and they will call it a tackle!

Beat Navy.

(09-21-2017 11:06 AM)AABearcat Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 10:54 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 10:47 AM)AABearcat Wrote:  The inconsistency of targeting calls drives me nuts. I don't think the call on Perry was a good one. Furthermore, you're taught to tackle with your head up and across the ball carriers body - so to a degree - tacklers are going to lead with their head to get in good form tackling position.

You can't tell a tacklers intent and to me that's the issue with this rule. The rule is in place to prevent cheap shots, guys going for kill shots to the head, and for those types of plays the rule is correct. But I'm seeing the majority of these targeting calls going against guys just trying to make a good, clean tackle and I think 15 yards, an ejection, and missing the next half is out of whack.

This is exactly what he did. The play was stopped. Ragland was down, and he launched at his head with his shoulder. There are plenty of times I get upset with these type of calls, but this was a cheap shot directly to the head.

I'll have to go back and look at it, I admit I haven't look at it since Saturday night. At first glance, I thought it was a bad call. Pretty soon you'll be able to touch a guy with both hands and they will call it a tackle!

Beat Navy.

Ragland was wrapped on had at least one knee down...I don't think the definition of a tackle is in question.

(09-21-2017 11:17 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 11:06 AM)AABearcat Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 10:54 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 10:47 AM)AABearcat Wrote:  The inconsistency of targeting calls drives me nuts. I don't think the call on Perry was a good one. Furthermore, you're taught to tackle with your head up and across the ball carriers body - so to a degree - tacklers are going to lead with their head to get in good form tackling position.

You can't tell a tacklers intent and to me that's the issue with this rule. The rule is in place to prevent cheap shots, guys going for kill shots to the head, and for those types of plays the rule is correct. But I'm seeing the majority of these targeting calls going against guys just trying to make a good, clean tackle and I think 15 yards, an ejection, and missing the next half is out of whack.

This is exactly what he did. The play was stopped. Ragland was down, and he launched at his head with his shoulder. There are plenty of times I get upset with these type of calls, but this was a cheap shot directly to the head.

I'll have to go back and look at it, I admit I haven't look at it since Saturday night. At first glance, I thought it was a bad call. Pretty soon you'll be able to touch a guy with both hands and they will call it a tackle!

Beat Navy.

Ragland was wrapped on had at least one knee down...I don't think the definition of a tackle is in question.

If he had a knee down, then forward progress was stopped and it would be targeting. When rewatching it, I saw it as he was still progressing or could have reached the ball for additional yards. On rewatch I saw youngs hit more like a hit on a goal line play trying to limit forward progress. Admittedly, I thought it was ugly and likely targeting when originally watching. Will have to watch again with more attention to his knee being down.

I agree that it was targeting. My issue is that I feel like this same play could happen 10 times and it would probably not be called targeting 4 times and targeting the other 6. There is no consistency.

As time goes on my guess is that we will see more and more targeting calls as colleges and the NFL try to protect themselves from lawsuits.

(09-21-2017 11:29 AM)bearcatfan1211 Wrote:  I agree that it was targeting. My issue is that I feel like this same play could happen 10 times and it would probably not be called targeting 4 times and targeting the other 6. There is no consistency.

This is my issue with the call too. As I said in my initial post, you're going to lead with the head as a function of - head up, across the ball carrier, wrap up, run through the hit. I think targeting was more designed for Jack Tatum type hits - headhunting. Defenseless QBs taking the crown of the helmet to the chin - that type of thing. Guys bumping heads as part of a tackle - not so much.

Does anyone have a link to a video view?

I hate losing Perry, but this was an easy call. The play was dead (defenseless) and he hit the quarterback in the head and neck area with the shoulder. It meets all the criteria.