What the "Targeting" rule say and why it was applied to Sivels' hit

[Cougsocal]

First, there is the quick and easy answer to getting targeting call right. Basically any effort to "Lay the wood" in the traditional football sense to someone where the contact is above the mid section is likely to be confirmed to be targeting 98% of the time, if flagged. (Subject to the Dixon Exception.

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Sivels, as his own tweet shows, crouched then drove upward striking at the chest first (in theory legal, though "the neck area" is vague), then his momentum carried the force of the blow upwards into the receivers neck and helmet with his (illegal). Like it of not he made forcible contact with neck area, at a bare minimum. There is no language that say only the intial point of contact matters. And if there is any doubt, it is targeting.

Was the player defenseless?

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
• A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first

Sivels ran afoul of the receiver who "has not had time to protect himself/not clearly a ball carrier" definition.

You can argue that it shouldn't be targeting, that's just hard nose football, but under the rules it was clearly targeting.

Cougs, if you don't want a 15 yard penalty and getting toss, potential losing us a game, just stop trying to "decleat" opposing players, which is what Sivels was clearly trying to do. "All Black" the guy and move on.

 

[Cougatron]

First, there is the quick and easy answer to getting targeting call right. Basically any effort to "Lay the wood" in the traditional football sense to someone where the contact is above the mid section is likely to be confirmed to be targeting 98% of the time, if flagged. (Subject to the Dixon Exception.

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Sivels, as his own tweet shows, crouched then drove upward striking at the chest first (in theory legal, though "the neck area" is vague), then his momentum carried the force of the blow upwards into the receivers neck and helmet with his (illegal). Like it of not he made forcible contact with neck area, at a bare minimum. There is no language that say only the intial point of contact matters. And if there is any doubt, it is targeting.

Was the player defenseless?

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
• A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first

Sivels ran afoul of the receiver who "has not had time to protect himself/not clearly a ball carrier" definition.

You can argue that it shouldn't be targeting, that's just hard nose football, but under the rules it was clearly targeting.

Cougs, if you don't want a 15 yard penalty and getting toss, potential losing us a game, just stop trying to "decleat" opposing players, which is what Sivels was clearly trying to do. "All Black" the guy and move on.

It’s not targeting.

It wasn’t the head or neck area. He hit him in the chest and that is perfectly legal, otherwise almost all hits are “targeting”

Silvels never targeted the player/launched himself at the neck/head of the other player.

He hit his torso. And that is legal and always will/should be legal.

 

[acgcoug]

It’s not targeting.

It wasn’t the head or neck area. He hit him in the chest and that is perfectly legal, otherwise almost all hits are “targeting”

Silvels never targeted the player/launched himself at the neck/head of the other player.

He hit his torso. And that is legal and always will/should be legal.

Exactly. If that was targeting, then nearly every other run play into a crowded DL/line of scrimmage would get flagged for targeting.

 

[Loyal Coug]

First, there is the quick and easy answer to getting targeting call right. Basically any effort to "Lay the wood" in the traditional football sense to someone where the contact is above the mid section is likely to be confirmed to be targeting 98% of the time, if flagged. (Subject to the Dixon Exception.

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Sivels, as his own tweet shows, crouched then drove upward striking at the chest first (in theory legal, though "the neck area" is vague), then his momentum carried the force of the blow upwards into the receivers neck and helmet with his (illegal). Like it of not he made forcible contact with neck area, at a bare minimum. There is no language that say only the intial point of contact matters. And if there is any doubt, it is targeting.

Was the player defenseless?

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):

• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

Sivels ran afoul of the receiver who "has not had time to protect himself/not clearly a ball carrier" definition.

You can argue that it shouldn't be targeting, that's just hard nose football, but under the rules it was clearly targeting.

Cougs, if you don't want a 15 yard penalty and getting toss, potential losing us a game, just stop trying to "decleat" opposing players, which is what Sivels was clearly trying to do. "All Black" the guy and move on.

I have no idea how you can draw your conclusions here. Silvels did not "crouch", nor did he "drive upward". What replay are you watching? 'Cuz it's not this play, which I have watched numerous times now.. Silvels did lower his head, I'll give you that. But he barely clipped the receiver's helmet. The play was bang bang - the ball was within a few feet of the receiver. No time to stop, react, anything. I would argue that Silvel's body language was "going for the brakes" because the pass was not caught.

At best (worst) an unbiased observer might say "it was pretty close".

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

The way that rule is written, nearly every tackle in football is targeting. It is taught as good tacking form to "break down", otherwise you're going to get trucked.

So again, just like the Thompson play, the defensive player is told that in order to avoid a penalty they must now make themselves completely defenseless in the face of an impending collision.

As for "All Black"-ing them, or "Hawk tackling", it'll only be a matter of time before that becomes a foul for "targeting the knees" or some other such garbage.

This is what happens when you over-legislate stuff. Everyone knows what a dirty play is. $C guy - dirty as hell. Silvels - not so much.

 

[froropmkr72]

The way that rule is written, nearly every tackle in football is targeting. It is taught as good tacking form to "break down", otherwise you're going to get trucked.

So again, just like the Thompson play, the defensive player is told that in order to avoid a penalty they must now make themselves completely defenseless in the face of an impending collision.

As for "All Black"-ing them, or "Hawk tackling", it'll only be a matter of time before that becomes a foul for "targeting the knees" or some other such garbage.

This is what happens when you over-legislate stuff. Everyone knows what a dirty play is. $C guy - dirty as hell. Silvels - not so much.

I don't even see a lowered head. Maybe the tackle was so hard it scared the official. Feet on the ground. Check.

 

[YakiCoug]

First, I highly doubt Cougsocal is an actual Coug. Second, the targeting call came from an officiating crew on a mission to make WSU lose (Great Scott! Payback time). And a certain official from that USC crew (Glenn) was on the field Saturday night in Pullman. Once again, Larry Scott can go fvck himself.

I don't even see a lowered head. Maybe the tackle was so hard it scared the official. Feet on the ground. Check.

 

[Loyal Coug]

I don't even see a lowered head. Maybe the tackle was so hard it scared the official. Feet on the ground. Check.

To be fair, this tweet-clip was taken after the collision - the receiver's head was turning away in part because of the collision, and Silvels was bouncing back as well. But you can surmise that there had been no crouching and launching upwards. And, I think that is the ball at the left hand corner of the screen, which tells you just how close the contact was from the ball arriving. Unlike the USC play where the ball was clearly gone before the crouch and launch even started.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Yaki, SoCal is a Coug. Let that notion rest.

As for the targeting rule, there is too much "you say potayto and I say Potaaato" inherent in the rule. Like most regulations in most fields it was written with the best of intentions, but its enforcement invites inconsistency and confusion. The ideas presented on more than one fan site and amongst various announcers suggesting two levels of this foul (Targeting 1 and Targeting 2) appears to me to make the most sense, with the appearance of intent being the demarcation. Essentially, a yellow card and a red card for football.

 

[kugrz98]

How many of you have actually watched the clip?

 

[Glad Cougar]

The part that gets me is that Silvels is only a foot or so away from the receiver when it is clear he doesn't/hasn't caught the ball. If they consider that receiver a defenseless player, that's just plain wrong. If Silvels was expected to "get out of the way and avoid the contact", what would be the expectation if the receiver had caught the ball?

That kind of play and tackle happens many, many times over the course of a game. Call it every time or don't call it at all.

Glad Cougar

 

[79COUG]

This is like the cop who sets up a speed trap and gives people a ticket for going 2 mph over the speed limit (hello East Wenatchee cops).
Only difference is there are no judges who throw the case out...

 

[Cougsocal]

I didn't write the rule, but you hit a guy high at you and your team's peril. I'm a Coug, and I'm also fair minded and not an iIntellectually dishonest homer, like some of you appears to be.

Now look at the video, read the rule, and explain why, using the RULE, why it wasn't Targeting. Come on, I dare you. Yaki.... Tron .... come on.

 

[Cougsocal]

The part that gets me is that Silvels is only a foot or so away from the receiver when it is clear he doesn't/hasn't caught the ball. If they consider that receiver a defenseless player, that's just plain wrong. If Silvels was expected to "get out of the way and avoid the contact", what would be the expectation if the receiver had caught the ball?

That kind of play and tackle happens many, many times over the course of a game. Call it every time or don't call it at all.

Glad Cougar

Take the time to read the rule above closely. Like it or not, it is an effort to reduce/eliminate concussive high tackling of all types and change how the game is played fundamentally. Now, if Sivels wasn't wearing a high tech helmet and face mask, don't you think he would have tried to tackle, hit him, differently? That's the problem. Prior to the 80's it was primarily a wrap up tackling game, they want that to return for the health and safety of all players. The concussive era is over.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Take the time to read the rule above closely. Like it or not, it is an effort to reduce/eliminate concussive high tackling of all types and change how the game is played fundamentally. Now, if Sivels wasn't wearing a high tech helmet and face mask, don't you think he would have tried to tackle, hit him, differently? That's the problem. Prior to the 80's it was primarily a wrap up tackling game, they want that to return for the health and safety of all players. The concussive era is over.

I get what you are arguing but I don't agree at all. I get that Silvels dipped his head right before the hit and technically, that is probably what caused the targeting call. The problem is, if you watch any football game, defensive players lower their head around half the time. The BS part about this is that Silvels hit him square in the chest and the Cal player ducked his head down into Silvels helmet. That was a terrible call and an even more egregious review of the call.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I get what you are arguing but I don't agree at all. I get that Silvels dipped his head right before the hit and technically, that is probably what caused the targeting call. The problem is, if you watch any football game, defensive players lower their head around half the time. The BS part about this is that Silvels hit him square in the chest and the Cal player ducked his head down into Silvels helmet. That was a terrible call and an even more egregious review of the call.

Don't forget that offensive players (ball carriers) dip their heads' 100% of the time, even spearing sometimes, and are NEVER called for any sort of penalty.

The calls have to go both ways if "safety" is truly the primary concern. The fact that they don't speaks for itself.

 

[avabob11]

Clearly no launching. Silvels made no upward thrust with his helmet. It actually was going down when it made contact, which also appeared to be in the shoulder chest area.

 

[Loyal Coug]

I didn't write the rule, but you hit a guy high at you and your team's peril. I'm a Coug, and I'm also fair minded and not an iIntellectually dishonest homer, like some of you appears to be.

Now look at the video, read the rule, and explain why, using the RULE, why it wasn't Targeting. Come on, I dare you. Yaki.... Tron .... come on.

Clearly no launching. Silvels made no upward thrust with his helmet. It actually was going down when it made contact, which also appeared to be in the shoulder chest area.

Socal, in a previous post you said Silvels crouched and launched. No he didn't. He did lower his head - on a bang bang play. But you know, so did the Cal WR. If the Cal guy hadn't lowered his head, Silvels probably wouldn't have hit his helmet at all. AT BEST, this is a close call.

 

[Cougsocal]

Socal, in a previous post you said Silvels crouched and launched. No he didn't. He did lower his head - on a bang bang play. But you know, so did the Cal WR. If the Cal guy hadn't lowered his head, Silvels probably wouldn't have hit his helmet at all. AT BEST, this is a close call.

You are right, from the ground angle there does not appear to be much crouch that I saw from TV higher camera angle (receiver motion downwards). But it is replaced with the leading with the helmet to neck and head area and lowering of the helmet, problems. The fact is Sivels had to have seen the receiver, he clearly did not hit him by accident. How does the crown of the helmet hit the receivers jaw line without him lowering his head after locating him?

As you can see from avabob's response, people still aren't willing to read the rule, and/or offer a plausible explanation, using the rule, that it was, beyond question, not target. If there is "any question," it is targeting. by rule, that not me.

Really, what's the difference between this hit and the one Minshew took, besides jersey color. Both were targeting under the rule. Nationally, it is accepted we were complete hosed on the Minshew call, and the P-12 is the one that looks the idiot for still denying the obvious.

 

[Cougsocal]

I get what you are arguing but I don't agree at all. I get that Silvels dipped his head right before the hit and technically, that is probably what caused the targeting call. The problem is, if you watch any football game, defensive players lower their head around half the time. The BS part about this is that Silvels hit him square in the chest and the Cal player ducked his head down into Silvels helmet. That was a terrible call and an even more egregious review of the call.

See the defenseless player definition. But lets not kids ourselves Sivels was trying to "lay the wood" to seperate the receiver from the ball and did not keep his head up during the process. Getting back to my initial comment, any big hit above the mid section leaves the player exposed to a targeting call under the above rule, head up or not. You may be able to thread the "hit" needle on occasion, but more often than not you will get burnt. So the Cougs need to play smart and avoid the gamble.

 

[Loyal Coug]

You are right, from the ground angle there does not appear to be much crouch that I saw from TV higher camera angle (receiver motion downwards). But it is replaced with the leading with the helmet to neck and head area and lowering of the helmet, problems. The fact is Sivels had to have seen the receiver, he clearly did not hit him by accident. How does the crown of the helmet hit the receivers jaw line without him lowering his head after locating him?

As you can see from avabob's response, people still aren't willing to read the rule, and/or offer a plausible explanation, using the rule, that it was, beyond question, not target. If there is "any question," it is targeting. by rule, that not me.

Really, what's the difference between this hit and the one Minshew took, besides jersey color. Both were targeting under the rule. Nationally, it is accepted we were complete hosed on the Minshew call, and the P-12 is the one that looks the idiot for still denying the obvious.

You sort of had me nodding along, until I read this. What's the difference? Like night vs day? Sun vs moon? Trump vs a decent human being? (couldn't resist). Snake vs Mongoose? Dog vs Cat? Coug vs husky? Hardnose play where players dipped his head a little vs punk deliberately crouching and launching then driving QB's head into the turf?

 

[Fab5Coug]

How many of you have actually watched the clip?

View embedded media

If you pause that right at the point of contact, you could certainly make the argument the contact was to the "neck area".

Like it or not, you light up a receiver high like that, and it very well might be called targeting.

Honestly, I wonder if Coug fans are THAT upset about this call if it weren't for the Gustin no call.

 

[Fab5Coug]

You are right, from the ground angle there does not appear to be much crouch that I saw from TV higher camera angle (receiver motion downwards). But it is replaced with the leading with the helmet to neck and head area and lowering of the helmet, problems. The fact is Sivels had to have seen the receiver, he clearly did not hit him by accident. How does the crown of the helmet hit the receivers jaw line without him lowering his head after locating him?

As you can see from avabob's response, people still aren't willing to read the rule, and/or offer a plausible explanation, using the rule, that it was, beyond question, not target. If there is "any question," it is targeting. by rule, that not me.

Really, what's the difference between this hit and the one Minshew took, besides jersey color. Both were targeting under the rule. Nationally, it is accepted we were complete hosed on the Minshew call, and the P-12 is the one that looks the idiot for still denying the obvious.

Dude, I was with you till this. You can't honestly think those two hits were similar. Both technically targeting? Sure, I could buy that. But, that is where the similarities end.

Gustin launched himself.
Gustin made clear helmet to helmet contact.
Gustin hit Minshew late.
Gustin hit Minshew while he was already in the grasp of another defender.
Gustin drove Minshew to the turf.

Silvels did none of those things.

Gustin's hit checked every box there is for targeting. Silvels checked maybe one.

 

[dgibbons]

Dude, I was with you till this. You can't honestly think those two hits were similar. Both technically targeting? Sure, I could buy that. But, that is where the similarities end.

Gustin launched himself.
Gustin made clear helmet to helmet contact.
Gustin hit Minshew late.
Gustin hit Minshew while he was already in the grasp of another defender.
Gustin drove Minshew to the turf.

Silvels did none of those things.

Gustin's hit checked every box there is for targeting. Silvels checked maybe one.

Gustin redirected himself to hit Minshew in the head.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

See the defenseless player definition. But lets not kids ourselves Sivels was trying to "lay the wood" to seperate the receiver from the ball and did not keep his head up during the process. Getting back to my initial comment, any big hit above the mid section leaves the player exposed to a targeting call under the above rule, head up or not. You may be able to thread the "hit" needle on occasion, but more often than not you will get burnt. So the Cougs need to play smart and avoid the gamble.

Part of my issue is that I don't buy the defenseless receiver angle at all. One of the reasons that I was critical of Tago in the USC game was that he took 3 steps before he hit the QB. It was clearly a bad choice by Tago to hit a "defenseless" QB kneeling on the ground. On the Silvels hit, he took maybe one step before the hit.....maybe. Sure he was trying to hit him hard.....but this is tackle football.....and that's part of the sport.

Think back to Deonne Buccanon's huge hit on Corey Grant in the Auburn game in 2013.......heck....here's the video.

If you watch, he lowers his head as he lays one of the biggest hits of the entire football season. That was the first year that targeting was in place and it was a point of emphasis. He lowered his head and obliterated that poor bastard. No targeting call. He did get called for unsportsmanlike conduct for letting Corey Grant know that based on that hit, he was officially Deonne's b!tch for the rest of his life, but he didn't get called for targeting. There wasn't a single Auburn fan asking for targeting. They were asking why he wasn't on their team instead.

Silvels was unfairly punished by an officiating crew that was out to make a point to Mike Leach.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

If you pause that right at the point of contact, you could certainly make the argument the contact was to the "neck area".

Like it or not, you light up a receiver high like that, and it very well might be called targeting.

Honestly, I wonder if Coug fans are THAT upset about this call if it weren't for the Gustin no call.

Not even the Gustin call - I think its the accumulation of all the 15 yard penalties this season. Its fcking gross how many of them we've received.

 

[wazzubruce]

I don't see Silvel's hit as targeting. He made initial contact with the chest/shoulder and the receivers head came forward and down from the impact of the hit and they clinked helmets. I don't see targeting here. SC's lame ass player was cheap and tried to injure Gardner. That hit is the textbook definition of targeting. Cheap player.

 

[CougEd]

If you pause that right at the point of contact, you could certainly make the argument the contact was to the "neck area".

Like it or not, you light up a receiver high like that, and it very well might be called targeting.

Honestly, I wonder if Coug fans are THAT upset about this call if it weren't for the Gustin no call.

Bingo

 

[Coug90]

Bingo

Well that’s certainly part of the narrative. If this is called this tight on both sides all year then you wouldn’t see the complaints. It obviously isn’t. Hence the outrage.

 

[YakiCoug]

Dude, I was with you till this. You can't honestly think those two hits were similar. Both technically targeting? Sure, I could buy that. But, that is where the similarities end.

Gustin launched himself.
Gustin made clear helmet to helmet contact.
Gustin hit Minshew late.
Gustin hit Minshew while he was already in the grasp of another defender.
Gustin drove Minshew to the turf.

Silvels did none of those things.

Gustin's hit checked every box there is for targeting. Silvels checked maybe one.

Gustin's helmet had a mustache on it after that hit.

 

[fingerdisco]

Part of my issue is that I don't buy the defenseless receiver angle at all. One of the reasons that I was critical of Tago in the USC game was that he took 3 steps before he hit the QB. It was clearly a bad choice by Tago to hit a "defenseless" QB kneeling on the ground.

Not that it matters at this point, but Tago did not take 3 steps before hitting the QB—when his knee touches, Tago takes one long stride onto his left foot before he make contact with shoulder. It happens much more quickly than you’re portraying it, and he appears to be letting off when he makes contact. I see no malice in his tackle.

(www.espn.com/video/clip?id=24958020)

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Not that it matters at this point, but Tago did not take 3 steps before hitting the QB—when his knee touches, Tago takes one long stride onto his left foot before he make contact with shoulder. It happens much more quickly than you’re portraying it, and he appears to be letting off when he makes contact. I see no malice in his tackle.

(www.espn.com/video/clip?id=24958020)

I agree that there was no malice and irregardless of the scandal of Dixon calling in, it was the right choice not to call him for targeting.