ADVERTISEMENT

Here's the copied text of Targetting Rule

Here's where this board gets completely pathetic when you have several posters, who have probably never played the game - but deem themselves "experts", say absurd shit like "if Brooks had actually tackled Mertz..... blah, blah, blah", when Mertz "ACTUALLY" DID tackle Mertz as the video unquestionably demonstrates (Mertz goes out-of-bounds immediately after the collision with Brooks). Mertz clearly made the decision to run the sideline and after Brooks trapped him there by closing on his left side, Mertz, and nobody but Mertz, decided upon a direct collision in an attempt to drive Brooks backwards for the final 2 yards. He clearly failed and Brooks did "tackle" him as defined by the rules - to say that it is bad technique to use the sideline as a defender and trap the runner to the sideline by containing his "on-field" side as you close (in this case Mertz's left side) giving the runner only 2 options - run the sideline or step out to avoid contact... is utter bullshit - really laughably absurd bullshit... and something that anyone who has played the game at any level would never say. You're coached to use the sideline as your friend in that situation and hitting them on their left side is precisely what you're taught to do in that situation.
Come on now, I played football. Don’t make believe you don’t understand what I’m saying when I talk about tackling. I’m not talking about a tally in a statistical column, I’m talking about wrapping the ball carrier up and taking him to the ground. Fact of. The matter is that by going for the hit to drive him out of bounds instead of wrapping him up he got himself kicked out of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJollaLion
This link shows an excellent video of Brooks lowering his helmet and making contact with crown of helmet to helmet of QB. Tough to argue against the call. That said, I agree with announcer Klatt that the Brooks was not intentionally targeting Mertz and should only have been penalized.
I don't believe he was targeting, but it was close enough that I can live with it. I was only able to listen to the game at that point, but when the announcers said the Wisconsin crowd wanted it I was pretty sure they'd get it. I was reminded of the story about how the Immaculate Reception supposedly stood because the Steelers couldn't guarantee the official's safety. No doubt the crowd influenced this call a bit. I really thought it was going to lead to a Wisconsin win, as a targeting call can be deflating. I still believe the start of Ohio State's woodshed loss to Iowa in 2017 can be traced back to the ejection of Nick Boss on a targeting call. This one came at a critical time in the game and felt like it could have caused our D to pack it in. The fact that they didn't leads me to think this team has a chance to be special.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUALREADYKNOW
Aside from the "mechanics" of the tackle, from a procedural standpoint was this a coaches challenge? (I believe a post earlier in the thread stated targeting could not be initiated via a challenge)
Was it initiated from the replay booth? Sure seemed like the time out led to the review.
Was Wisconsin given their timeout back? If so, why?
I find it frustrating that the same league officials who think knocking a player unconscious isn't targeting but a specious call where no flags were thrown and the player immediately walked away (if he was even knocked down) was called targeting.
 
I saw the crown of Brooks helmet make contact with the QB.
By this rule I can see why the targeting was called.
Don't think it matters that the shoulder hit first. At least nothing in the text OP quotes says anything about that.

That said I would like to see this type of hit be allowed,
Not nitpicking but per stated rule ' takes aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.'
It seemed to me Brooks' intention was to attack with forcible contact with his chest and shoulders. He planted his feet, and due to the distance between him and the runner, had to lean into a more horizontal angle. Even with this, the helmets didn't contact each other until after initial contact and change of direction for the runner, and even after that, not with the defender's crown.
If the NCAA wants the rule to be interpreted correctly, I would suggest adding sensors to the crown of every defenders helmets and corresponding ones to every part of the offensive player...when the 2 meet, bingo. I don't think they contacted each other on this play. Closer on the continuation of the play, but the wording of 'purpose' (initial) has a different interpretation than 'effect' (overall).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
Do you folks ever simply enjoy the game and not obsess about officiating?
My beef is that this may affect Penn State's aggressiveness on defense, while others, particularly OSU will continue with their overly aggressive ways. The play that keeps coming to mind was the one where nobody on OSU's defense could keep up with KJ Hamler and one of their players took the liberty to pile on as he was going down and knock him out of the game...was a grey area play, but had implications. This one as well. I just hope Penn State pushes this up the ladder and gets conclusive why this one and will it be called reasonably consistently in the future. The refs have instant replay from multiple angles, which should make things better and easier...but doesn't seem so.
Do I obsess, sometimes. I just felt that was a bad call on an undeserving player (who finally is coming into his own) with large game implications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Option Bob
Not nitpicking but per stated rule ' takes aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.'
It seemed to me Brooks' intention was to attack with forcible contact with his chest and shoulders. He planted his feet, and due to the distance between him and the runner, had to lean into a more horizontal angle. Even with this, the helmets didn't contact each other until after initial contact and change of direction for the runner, and even after that, not with the defender's crown.
If the NCAA wants the rule to be interpreted correctly, I would suggest adding sensors to the crown of every defenders helmets and corresponding ones to every part of the offensive player...when the 2 meet, bingo. I don't think they contacted each other on this play. Closer on the continuation of the play, but the wording of 'purpose' (initial) has a different interpretation than 'effect' (overall).

Exactly, the rule for an unprotected player (Rule 9-1-3) specifically states intention and requires that the player "takes aim" with the crown of their helmet (i.e., is pinpointing their contact to be with the crown of their helmet) - that clearly does not happen here. The contact between their helmets occurred due to the circumstances of the initial contact and the runner's actions immediately prior to impact (and it is relevant in this circumstance that the nature of the direct collision was completely the choice of the runner, not the defender - by tautology, the defender occupies the upfield position and is entitled to defend it.).

If Brooks made any mistake in his form, it was not in trapping Mertz against the sideline and moving to knock him OB - that is what you are taught to do as the highest percentage tackle - it was in getting his head across Mertz's body (i.e., wrong-sided) rather than keeping his head to the outside of Mertz's left side. Once his head crossed Mertz's body, he lost quite a bit of his leverage, which is why he struck somewhat of a glancing blow and the helmets contacting each other as he slides across Mertz after first contact.
 
Last edited:
Come on now, I played football. Don’t make believe you don’t understand what I’m saying when I talk about tackling. I’m not talking about a tally in a statistical column, I’m talking about wrapping the ball carrier up and taking him to the ground. Fact of. The matter is that by going for the hit to drive him out of bounds instead of wrapping him up he got himself kicked out of the game.
Smith doesn’t even know you’re allowed to use your arms to tackle. It’s hard to watch as they don’t even attack the ball. The throw to the TE that setup UW’s TD easily could have been poked out had he even attempted going for the ball. This call was on Brooks questionable, but had he gone low and wrapped like you said, he’s not ejected.
 
Do you folks ever simply enjoy the game and not obsess about officiating?
Typical Buckeye. Apparently the joke was so sophisticated that it went right over your head. You need to stick to coloring books.
 
Aside from the "mechanics" of the tackle, from a procedural standpoint was this a coaches challenge? (I believe a post earlier in the thread stated targeting could not be initiated via a challenge)
Was it initiated from the replay booth? Sure seemed like the time out led to the review.
Was Wisconsin given their timeout back? If so, why?
I find it frustrating that the same league officials who think knocking a player unconscious isn't targeting but a specious call where no flags were thrown and the player immediately walked away (if he was even knocked down) was called targeting.
It's THIS. I watched the OSU game too and the dude smoked the bloke. He was lights out. For me to appreciate/understand/accept this rule, I need to know why THAT play wasn't targeting in the OSU game.
 
It's THIS. I watched the OSU game too and the dude smoked the bloke. He was lights out. For me to appreciate/understand/accept this rule, I need to know why THAT play wasn't targeting in the OSU game.

Actually far worse than that as the Minny player was a protected "Defenseless Player" under the rule and entitled to the far broader protections of Rule 9-1-4 (Mertz was not a protected player as an ordinary ball carrier and only entitled to Rule 9-1-3 -- a prohibition against intentional use of crown of helmet [i.e., "Spearing"]). Rule 9-1-4 prohibits any contact whatsoever to head or shoulder area of protected "Defenseless Player" with any part of the defender's body, intentional or not.

Utterly absurd that no penalty was called on a beyond obvious Illegal hit by duhO$U defender in Minny game - even after a prolonged "Booth Review".... but a penalty was created on Brooks after Wisconsin requested it (no flag thrown on play and this play is not subject to "Coach's Challenge" under the Rule) on a Legal hit under the applicable rule (Rule 9-1-3, not the broder Rule 9-1-4 for qualifying "Defenseless Players").
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
Typical Buckeye. Apparently the joke was so sophisticated that it went right over your head. You need to stick to coloring books.

Typical Buckeye. Apparently the joke was so sophisticated that it went right over your head. You need to stick to coloring books.
You should learn to enjoy the game and not obsess. The fact is football is a very physical game and efforts to curb it are going to be spotty unless you simply want to go with flag football. Life is too short with or without coloring books, OSU and officials. Try to enjoy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimNazium
You should learn to enjoy the game and not obsess. The fact is football is a very physical game and efforts to curb it are going to be spotty unless you simply want to go with flag football. Life is too short with or without coloring books, OSU and officials. Try to enjoy it.
Disagreeing with officiating is simply part of taking in a game. Believing the officials are conspiring against your team is another matter.
 
Do you folks ever simply enjoy the game and not obsess about officiating?
Some teams have to be concerned about how the officials will apply the rules of the game. Some of us want to better understand those rules so the we know how they will be applied when our team is playing. We don't have the luxury to know that our team needn't worry that the officials will protect our team regardless of the rules.
 
You should learn to enjoy the game and not obsess. The fact is football is a very physical game and efforts to curb it are going to be spotty unless you simply want to go with flag football. Life is too short with or without coloring books, OSU and officials. Try to enjoy it.
You’d be singing a different tune if your player was assessed a targeting penalty and had to miss the first half of next week’s critical game. The OSU hit was clearly more a targeting foul, and for some unknown reason, it was not called. PSU fans simply like to point out the incompetence and how often biased the Big 10 officials are week after week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NovaPSULuvr
That was textbook not targeting. He wasn't leading with the crown of the helmet and initial contact wasn't with the crown of the helmet. End of discussion.
Even if the defender ends up tackling a runner with the crown of the helmet, which didn't even happen here, it's supposed to be fine as long as its not intentional. How big the collision ends up being is irrelevant. I was very confused by the call and the announcers agreeing with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
That was textbook not targeting. He wasn't leading with the crown of the helmet and initial contact wasn't with the crown of the helmet. End of discussion.
Even if the defender ends up tackling a runner with the crown of the helmet, which didn't even happen here, it's supposed to be fine as long as its not intentional. How big the collision ends up being is irrelevant. I was very confused by the call and the announcers agreeing with it.
Announcers don’t really bother thinking, they just talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcgunns
That was textbook not targeting. He wasn't leading with the crown of the helmet and initial contact wasn't with the crown of the helmet. End of discussion.
Even if the defender ends up tackling a runner with the crown of the helmet, which didn't even happen here, it's supposed to be fine as long as its not intentional. How big the collision ends up being is irrelevant. I was very confused by the call and the announcers agreeing with it.

Well, the announcers immediately mentioned that Mertz is Wisconsin's QB...., but he didn't qualify for QB protection here as he changed himself into a willing ball carrier and did not "give himself up" under the Rulebook (a running QB can gain "Defenseless Player" protection by giving himself up via running OB or sliding feet-first. If a running QB does either, they are protected under Rule 9-1-4, rather than Rule 9-1-3. This includes prohibition against hitting them once they make it clear they are giving themselves up via either alternative.). Mertz waiving his rights to the additional protections is hugely important on this type of play especially given that it is Mertz, and Mertz alone, who determines how violent the collision will be.... he made no effort to get around Brooks or put a move, spin or juke on him, rather Mertz CHOOSE to plow directly into defender and push him backwards in an attempt to gain final yards needed to get to 1st Down Mark. So it's Mertz that chose to make it a direct collision, not Brooks - once he does that, the rule (Rule 9-1-3) requires clear indications of intent to spear, which clearly weren't present here for the very reasons you enumerated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcgunns and 91Joe95
You’d be singing a different tune if your player was assessed a targeting penalty and had to miss the first half of next week’s critical game. The OSU hit was clearly more a targeting foul, and for some unknown reason, it was not called. PSU fans simply like to point out the incompetence and how often biased the Big 10 officials are week after week.
If you find enjoyment in that. Whatever floats your boat.
 
Seems as reasonable as finding enjoyment from going to another school’s message board to lecture them on how to enjoy their team’s games. To each their own, I suppose.
Good point up to a point. Sometimes though you need a different perspective or you get in a rut. That said, your rut is your business.
 
Because he's the voice of reason for all the b1g shizhole..... LMAO, what a douche especially given the fact that his team is on the favorable end of corrupt b1g clowns calls.

I don't understand why he can't find happiness on OSU boards?
 
Do you folks ever simply enjoy the game and not obsess about officiating?

It's easy to tut-tut about "obsessing" when your team is the Sacred Cow. But when you're the league's red-headed stepchild and have been on the receiving end of annual screwjobs, you tend to be not quite as cavalier about the issue.

Hey, I remember a time when Penn State had the same status in Eastern football as the Bucks have enjoyed in the Big Suck for decades. In those days, we got our share of calls...and then some.

Believe me, it's a lot more enjoyable to go into a game knowing that you're gonna get the benefit of the doubt from the zebras. Ohio State and Michigan have had that warm feeling for many decades. It's been 28 long years for us. At this point, I'm not asking for favors...just fairness. Figure the odds.
 
Because he's the voice of reason for all the b1g shizhole..... LMAO, what a douche especially given the fact that his team is on the favorable end of corrupt b1g clowns calls.
You sir would be exhibit A. I've yanked your chain enough. Later.
 
It's THIS. I watched the OSU game too and the dude smoked the bloke. He was lights out. For me to appreciate/understand/accept this rule, I need to know why THAT play wasn't targeting in the OSU game.

It's all good now, the B1G admitted their mistake.....4 days after it matters.

 
  • Like
Reactions: PearlSUJam
This link shows an excellent video of Brooks lowering his helmet and making contact with crown of helmet to helmet of QB. Tough to argue against the call. That said, I agree with announcer Klatt that the Brooks was not intentionally targeting Mertz and should only have been penalized.
You know why it looks like targeting? Because it is targeting. The call was correct, it's on Brooks.

The Ohio State call was targeting too. They just screwed it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Erial_Lion
Aside from the "mechanics" of the tackle, from a procedural standpoint was this a coaches challenge? (I believe a post earlier in the thread stated targeting could not be initiated via a challenge)
Was it initiated from the replay booth? Sure seemed like the time out led to the review.
Was Wisconsin given their timeout back? If so, why?
I find it frustrating that the same league officials who think knocking a player unconscious isn't targeting but a specious call where no flags were thrown and the player immediately walked away (if he was even knocked down) was called targeting.
This is where I have some issues as well. Ignoring the penalty itself, why wasn't it looked at on replay until UW took a timeout? In real time it looked suspect enough to review. I even told the people I was watching with that it might be targeting within a second of it happening. UW did get the TO back too, which only gives me more questions. If the only reason it was reviewed was because the TO gave them extra time to look at it, then shouldn't they still lose the TO? I don't believe it was a challenge situation where you get to keep the challenge when you're right. I wasn't aware of any rules or precedent that says if you call a TO because you hope that leads to replay getting more time to review a call you eventually get the TO back if you happen to be correct. I suspect the "official" stance from the Big 10 office on this would be that the TO had no impact on the replay and that it was initiated prior to UW's taking the TO hence the reason they didn't lose the TO. But that sure didn't seem to be the case when watching it live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany_93
You know why it looks like targeting? Because it is targeting. The call was correct, it's on Brooks.

The Ohio State call was targeting too. They just screwed it up.

Oh so their going to suspend the duhO$U player for the 1st Half of Oregon game, right??? BTW, the duhO$U hit was under a different rule (Rule 9-1-4 which is broader and protects "Defenseless Players" - it forbids any contact whatsoever to the "Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player" regardless of what part of the body the defender uses. IOW, given that the duhO$U defender targetted the Minny receiver directly in the side of his helmet - drilled him squarely in the earhole of his helmet first-contact with his own helmet - it's impossible to get this call wrong especially when the corrupt b1g crew "Booth Reviewed" the play.... but the only thing they saw was a Minny fumble, not a beyond blatantly obvious - INSANELY OBVIOUS - illegal "Targeting" hit!).

Brooks was not subject to this far broader definition of "Targetting" - Brooks was subject to Rule 9-3-1, which requires "all elements" of Spearing exist - including that the defender's intention was Spearing. You're full of shit imho that "all elements" of Rule 9-3-1 were met and Brooks' helmet contact was clearly "incidental" after initial contact with Mertz's shoulder and side (and largely resulted from Mertz twisting his left-side into Brooks while dropping his head level by a good foot - Mertz's knees are bent to 90 degrees when he curls up right before the contact.) and helmet contact was clearly not intentional. IOW, not Targetting under the rule if it is not intentional.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
This is where I have some issues as well. Ignoring the penalty itself, why wasn't it looked at on replay until UW took a timeout? In real time it looked suspect enough to review. I even told the people I was watching with that it might be targeting within a second of it happening. UW did get the TO back too, which only gives me more questions. If the only reason it was reviewed was because the TO gave them extra time to look at it, then shouldn't they still lose the TO? I don't believe it was a challenge situation where you get to keep the challenge when you're right. I wasn't aware of any rules or precedent that says if you call a TO because you hope that leads to replay getting more time to review a call you eventually get the TO back if you happen to be correct. I suspect the "official" stance from the Big 10 office on this would be that the TO had no impact on the replay and that it was initiated prior to UW's taking the TO hence the reason they didn't lose the TO. But that sure didn't seem to be the case when watching it live.

That is correct - a Booth Review can be called down to Referee from Head Booth Official, but within the Targetting Rule, it specifically says the a Booth Review may not be initiated via "Coach's Challenge". Just another thing that demonstrates that the cheating b1g clowns don't actually know the Rulebook and make shit up as they go along to suit their biases and agendas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT