How is TD Moultry targeting Here? (merged threads)

[nurbis 579]

11 hours ago, CameronCrazy said:

This is 100% targeting! Whether you like the rule or not, Moultry left his feet and launched into the QB’s head/neck area. He then made helmet to helmet contact with him.

What people SHOULD be upset about is why are you a redshirt senior and still don’t know how to aim for the chest or mid-section of the QB/ball carrier. 

Moultry had two 15 yard penalties yesterday. Undisciplined football from a senior.

Moultry left his feet, he didn't launch into the QB's head. We can all see the video, that didn't happen. It was a wrap up tackle with the majority of the hit being applied to the QBs body. The intent of the rule is to stop the full force of hits being applied to the head. That did not happen here. The refs didn't see it on the field, it wasn't called until replay saw it in slow motion. If you have to rely on slow motion to even see there was any contact between their helmets, then that isn't targeting. It is a poor application of the rule. 

[boisnumber1 2,830]

On 11/14/2021 at 7:12 AM, kwagoner said:

This wasn’t even a knee jerk flag being tossed because of a big collision. Instead, booth initiated. That’s what really gets me.

It is very telling if you ask me. Good old Birmingham effect. There was more than one very late flag tossed Saturday, and more than one tossed from way across the field. Definitely not blaming the refs for the outcome, but they were horrible, but in a very suspicious way on Saturday.

[boisnumber1 2,830]

22 hours ago, fredst said:

The intent of and motivation behind initiating the targeting rule is good. The way it is called and enforced is so arbitrary and inconsistent that it is one of the worst rules I’ve ever seen, particularly with how much it impacts  (multiple) games given the mandatory ejections. The one yesterday and the one against McClain at PSU are two egregious examples.

Yep, the ejection needs to be done away with for starters. Or at least eject on the second violation like basketball. But the real problem is the ref factor. It just gives them too much power to influence the game with one call. Everyone is pissed when it happens, and then by Monday, it is back to the status quo, and someone else will get screwed over the next weekend. The blindside block is the same. They try their damndest to call that even when the contact isn't dangerous or violent.

[aubiefifty 17,336]

Auburn Football

Baffling day at Auburn ends with serious questions

Updated: Nov. 14, 2021, 7:31 a.m. | Published: Nov. 13, 2021, 5:13 p.m.

Auburn head coach Bryan Harsin waits for an video replay review during the second half of an NCAA college football game against Mississippi State, Saturday, Nov. 13, 2021, in Auburn, Ala. (AP Photo/Butch Dill)AP

553

shares

By Joseph Goodman | jgoodman@al.com

It’s impossible to know if Auburn’s stunning collapse to Mississippi State on Saturday would have been different based on one play.

Maybe, but probably not.

When a team blows a 25-point lead, and that collapse is the worst in school history, and it’s Mississippi State that’s on the other sideline inside Jordan-Hare Stadium, one play probably isn’t going to mean that much to anyone on the silent drive home.

That doesn’t mean this one play in particular is any less significant, though.

Auburn’s season under first-year coach Bryan Harsin fell off the cliff with its 43-34 loss to Mississippi State, and it was painful to watch a team with so much promise at halftime blow it all like that, but tucked inside that historically bad second half was the controversial ejection for targeting on Auburn pass rusher T.D. Moultry.

Where to begin?

How about here? The call by the replay booth was violently awful. The decision to kick Moultry out of the game was unforgivably unnecessary. Somebody, please help it make sense.

Harsin wasn’t that guy after the game. He indicated that the field officials didn’t see anything to qualify it as targeting.

“They saw what I saw,” Harsin said, who added that it was a “momentum-changing play” that “wasn’t called on the field.”

Somebody, anybody, please explain how the evolution of targeting — a very important rule in college football — has evolved to the point that arguably the best defensive play in an SEC football game is instead penalized for 15 yards, an automatic first down and, most egregiously of all, an ejection from the game.

No, that play isn’t why Auburn lost, but it could have been the thing to resuscitate Auburn’s chances in one of its most important games of the season.

It was either rage inducing, soul crushing or frightening for the Auburn supporters still watching the game at that point. As a mostly unbiased observer, I wanted to throw my laptop at the windows inside the David E. Housel press box. It was a beautiful football play. Moultry broke through the Mississippi State offensive line, left his feet as if trying to position himself to deflect a pass but then registered a sack when Bulldogs quarterback Will Rogers pulled the ball down.

Yes, it was helmet to helmet. No, there was no intent to injure Mississippi State’s quarterback. Moultry was called for targeting, but he did not “target” the quarterback. It was not a “dirty” play, and it didn’t even seem like a dangerous play.

Earlier in the second half, the helmet of Mississippi State defensive back Emmanuel Forbes Jr. collided painfully with the helmet of Auburn receiver Kobe Hudson on a questionable play. A flag was thrown for targeting, but upon review, despite it being helmet to helmet, it was overturned because, clearly, Forbes’ intent wasn’t to harm and he was going for the interception.

It was a football play, in other words … just like Moultry’s.

Y’all, again, please help it make sense.

There was a lengthy review after Moultry’s sack, too, and third and 21 turned into first and 10 and Moultry, who had rightly celebrated the sack, was, just that fast, gone. Kicked out of the game. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve written about “bad calls” determining the outcomes of games, and this horrendous call, in my opinion, doesn’t qualify as that, but it does help me understand the difficult job defenders and defensive coaches now have in this game.

They can’t play it the way they were taught their entire lives. Again, Moultry was innocent of targeting, and everyone knew it, but he was booted for a play because intent isn’t supposed to matter (unless it does) and because — trust me, I get it — preventing brain injuries and keeping players healthy has to matter more than anything else.

Auburn quarterback Bo Nix saw the replay, and got it right.

“Just getting to the quarterback is all you’re thinking about,” Nix said. “It’s one of those frustrating things, but that’s football and it happens.”

Remember the circumstances before the play for context. Auburn was still in the game, and trailing by eight, with 6:35 left on the clock. After the first down for targeting, Mississippi State scored its sixth straight second-half touchdown to go up 43-28.

For Auburn (6-4, 3-3), it was a devastating second half for its chances to remain in the hunt for the SEC West crown. Auburn led this game 28-3 in the first half thanks to excellent performances by both the offense and defense. What happened at halftime? Long will we be asking that question.

It will forever remain a mystery, but it seemed like everyone on Auburn’s sideline emerged from the locker room with the same kind of energy level people might experience after eating an entire turkey and three pecan pies while slamming back whiskey sweet tea.

Lethargic doesn’t even begin to describe the offensive line. Tired is what Auburn fans call questions about Harsin’s vaccination status. This team was sleep walking towards the edge of oblivion and didn’t seem to care.

Until Moultry’s sack.

And then that shot of momentum lasted long enough to review a play and seal the fate of a game. The defense allowed 40 unanswered points, so it shouldn’t have even been in that situation at all.

For Moultry, though, it was the heartbreaking conclusion to a sequence of events that should have been, or could have been, his single greatest on-field contribution to Auburn football in his entire career. He’s a senior, and he has been through a lot while at Auburn, but he has worked and worked, and his persistence was supposed to pay off on that field against Mississippi State.

Instead, the replay booth took that all away.

Joseph Goodman is a columnist for the Alabama Media Group.

[aubiefifty 17,336]

ok guys i am mostly done for the day because all the sports articles are nothing but doom and gloom.

[bishoptf 699]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

ok guys i am mostly done for the day because all the sports articles are nothing but doom and gloom.

Eh, I can't imagine that not like we haven't had to great back to back weeks of football...wait...nevermind.

[Tiger Refuge 6,682]

I’m totally showing my ignorance here, but has an offensive player ever been flagged for “targeting” for initiating the same type of contact? The reason I ask is that if the NCAA was really concerned about protecting players, initiating a “targeting” call should apply equally.

[nurbis 579]

5 minutes ago, Tiger Refuge said:

I’m totally showing my ignorance here, but has an offensive player ever been flagged for “targeting” for initiating the same type of contact? The reason I ask is that if the NCAA was really concerned about protecting players, initiating a “targeting” call should apply equally.

I saw a video recently, but was from a 2017 game, of a QB getting ejected for targeting on a block. It has happened but I doubt it happens often. 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/11/4/16607416/quarterback-ejected-targeting-northern-arizona  

[1716AU 732]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

ok guys i am mostly done for the day because all the sports articles are nothing but doom and gloom.

The past ten years just remind me of the 70s, and they sucked.

[3rdgeneration 6,473]

That call on Moultry was absolutely bogus. On television, you couldn't see if the refs threw a flag or not. The on screen graphics did not show "FLAG". Was this called 100% from the Birmingham office? If so, it is totally suspicious. Ensuring that Bama wins the west??? That's my tinfoil theory

 

[The Freak 2,529]

How many targeting calls do we get in the second half of the USCe game?  over/under is 2.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

On 11/14/2021 at 6:53 AM, Hank2020 said:

Looked like to me he launched himself (we keep saying he jumped to block the pass), and helmets hit together first. Describes targeting violation. Definitely was not the play the rule was trying to protect from though. Was not going to injure the player. Also odd they picked the earlier flag the rule was intended on protecting from.

Talking heads on ESPN radio are calling it targeting for sure. I disagree and think the rule needs to be refined. 

 

[tigereyes 19]

On 11/14/2021 at 11:49 AM, homersapien said:

Only if you include the facemask as part of the helmet. 

TD hit him with his head back, just like a perfect form tackle calls for.  He wasn't "spearing" the QB.  What a BS call this was.

As for "launching" that's BS too.  He was trying to sack a QB that was trying to throw the ball.

Also the QB was not defenseless.   He had plenty of time to tuck the ball and roll out.  He stood there and took the hit.

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

By definition of the rule, it was targeting because of the jump. I don't like it, but by the rule it fits the bill. 

The problem is the rule itself. It's a horrible rule. "But player safety..." The road to hell was paved with good intentions. 

The rule needs to be thrown out or at the least  needs to be some changes in my opinion.

#1- Needs to be a tiered penalty. Targeting one is what Moultry and McClains would have fallen in, which is nothing more than a warning on the first time. No penalty yards.  Just a warning. 

#2 - targeting 2 needs to be the bad ones where the player clearly tries to hurt someone. This should still not be an ejection on the first call. IF it is, it's only for the that half at the most.  

#3- Should not be initiated by the booth.....EVER. The fact that this has happened to u 2 times now is baffling to me. I have not seen it in any other team where the booth initiated and flagged but they have done it to Moultry and D. Hall last season vs UK

 

I honestly think the entire rule should be thrown to the trash.

[AUApostle 7,663]

22 hours ago, boisnumber1 said:

It is very telling if you ask me. Good old Birmingham effect. There was more than one very late flag tossed Saturday, and more than one tossed from way across the field. Definitely not blaming the refs for the outcome, but they were horrible, but in a very suspicious way on Saturday.

Has anyone tallied the # of MSU drives extended via penalty?  Seemed like 5 or 6?  Part of the problem is we just got done with the tamu game where physical coverage was allowed, but if these refs were calling such a tight game, Bobo should’ve taken advantage in our passing game.

[boisnumber1 2,830]

1 hour ago, AUDevil said:

Has anyone tallied the # of MSU drives extended via penalty?  Seemed like 5 or 6?  Part of the problem is we just got done with the tamu game where physical coverage was allowed, but if these refs were calling such a tight game, Bobo should’ve taken advantage in our passing game.

Bobo just flat out stopped what was working. Made no sense.

[GAAubie 501]

If they are going to make that horse shat call on us, why didn't they call it on Missouri in the 3rd quarter vs SC? Exact same play! See the play at 4:30 to go in the 3rd quarter. Missouri recovers in the end zone for  6 

[LKEEL75 2,566]

@WarTiger Any inputs on this call?  I have not read through every thread so you may have already commented somewhere else.

[TigerPAC 987]

43 minutes ago, GAAubie said:

If they are going to make that horse shat call on us, why didn't they call it on Missouri in the 3rd quarter vs SC? Exact same play! See the play at 4:30 to go in the 3rd quarter. Missouri recovers in the end zone for  6 

This is what Hardin should be asking!  Where was the booth ref during that game?  (Probably out in the quad in tuscaloosa)

seriously....as a coach, how can you teach players when in one game it’s targeting and another it’s not?  Same ol SEC crap officials 

Edited November 16, 2021 by TigerPAC

[The Freak 2,529]

On 11/14/2021 at 11:30 AM, WarTiger said:

It was horrible.  There was nothing in that play that even remotely pointed to that being a targeting call.     It was bad.  It wasn't Vanderbilt TD bad, but it was really bad.

45 minutes ago, LKEEL75 said:

@WarTiger Any inputs on this call?  I have not read through every thread so you may have already commented somewhere else.

[LKEEL75 2,566]

2 minutes ago, The Freak said:

 

Thanks @The Freak I did not want to search through the 1000s of posts about the disaster.

[GAAubie 501]

Quote from Mark Stoops in an article from Saturday Down South: “I don’t even know why I turn in plays anymore,” Stoops said. “It certainly doesn’t matter. I don’t think I will from now on.”

 

 

I am aware that we get some calls, but the SEC officiating(especially the review process in Bham) is CORRUPT and always has been. 

[WarTiger 3,941]

6 hours ago, LKEEL75 said:

@WarTiger Any inputs on this call?  I have not read through every thread so you may have already commented somewhere else.

It was the worse targeting call I've seen this year.

9 hours ago, Tigerpro2a said:

By definition of the rule, it was targeting because of the jump. I don't like it, but by the rule it fits the bill. 

The problem is the rule itself. It's a horrible rule. "But player safety..." The road to hell was paved with good intentions. 

The rule needs to be thrown out or at the least  needs to be some changes in my opinion.

#1- Needs to be a tiered penalty. Targeting one is what Moultry and McClains would have fallen in, which is nothing more than a warning on the first time. No penalty yards.  Just a warning. 

#2 - targeting 2 needs to be the bad ones where the player clearly tries to hurt someone. This should still not be an ejection on the first call. IF it is, it's only for the that half at the most.  

#3- Should not be initiated by the booth.....EVER. The fact that this has happened to u 2 times now is baffling to me. I have not seen it in any other team where the booth initiated and flagged but they have done it to Moultry and D. Hall last season vs UK

 

I honestly think the entire rule should be thrown to the trash.

I don't think you've read the actual definition of the rule if you think it was targeting solely because of the jump.   Jumping isn't even an indictor of targeting.  Here's the full definition of targeting and NOT ONE of those indicators were present in the Moultry  hit.  NOT ONE....

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head
or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. 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.  (We can end the targeting issue for Moultry with just that statement because nothing he did went beyond making a legal tackle) 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

NONE OF THOSE HAPPENED IN THE MOULTRY HIT.

I do agree the rule needs to be reassessed, but strongly disagree with your opinion on the penalties for it.   A warning is foolish and serves no purpose to stop the hits they are trying to prevent.  2. People complain all the time the officials have too much control of the game, now you want them to read a players mind and judge intent?  Won't work.   3.  We all have opinions on the booth initiating reviews for this, but, I've seen it multiple times over the course of the season, some confirmed and others not.

[33gles 496]

And nothing will change until a school sacks up and calls them on it. Eat some fines to make it happen if we have to. Start TD on Saturday, hell, make him a captain. FORCE the zebras to address the issue.

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

4 hours ago, WarTiger said:

It was the worse targeting call I've seen this year.

I don't think you've read the actual definition of the rule if you think it was targeting solely because of the jump.   Jumping isn't even an indictor of targeting.  Here's the full definition of targeting and NOT ONE of those indicators were present in the Moultry  hit.  NOT ONE....

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head
or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. 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.  (We can end the targeting issue for Moultry with just that statement because nothing he did went beyond making a legal tackle) 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

NONE OF THOSE HAPPENED IN THE MOULTRY HIT.

I do agree the rule needs to be reassessed, but strongly disagree with your opinion on the penalties for it.   A warning is foolish and serves no purpose to stop the hits they are trying to prevent.  2. People complain all the time the officials have too much control of the game, now you want them to read a players mind and judge intent?  Won't work.   3.  We all have opinions on the booth initiating reviews for this, but, I've seen it multiple times over the course of the season, some confirmed and others not.

I have read it, but been a loooong time. Probably since it first came out. Thanks for posting the indicators. A good brush up never hurts. You are right though. By the rule, it doesn't fit, but the jump is why theplay was reviewed and called IMO. If he doesn't leave his feet we aren't in this thread.

What I can say is that watching the game live I was shocked that flag wasn't thrown and even told the people I was watching with. As soon as they blew the whistle for the review I knew exactly why. 

Does this mean I agree with it? Hell no. Does this mean I think it should have been called? No. I don't think this is the worst targeting call I have ever seen though. I was more upset about the one against us earlier in the year (if we are leaving all other circumstances out) against Ricky Rabbit, honestly. Both players did a great job of not "targeting", but I have seen these refs in action, so the review and confirmation was no shock.

Also, I don't care about warnings either. I think the entire rule is pointless and should be thrown out because it is too subjective. Football is a man's game and not for the faint of heart. Injury is a risk that the players choose to take. Many may disagree with that also and that's fine.  

Edit- By the way, I haven't rewatched the play until a minute ago. When watching live I thought TD did jump at more of an upward angle. Anyway...rul still needs to be tossed.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Tigerpro2a