In response to an email I sent to the Pac-12's head of officiating, David Coleman, (thank you, Cardboarders, for the content I repurposed and the email address), I received the email below from Dave Hirsch, the Pac-12's VP of Communications. While I was pleasantly surprised to receive a response at all, I was astounded/infuriated by Hirsch's judgment that the Goodman hit on Owusu was not targeting. The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because (i) Owusu was not defenseless, and (ii) Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself). Considering that the front part of the helmet seems equally dangerous (at least to the other player), this seems like a somewhat arbitrary distinction (a few degrees of head angle?) and completely illogical, if the intention of the rule is to prevent injuries.
RJ. (my first post)
--------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Hirsch [mailto:dhirsch@pac-12.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 6:11 PM
To: RJ
Subject: Re: UCLA targeting
Importance: High
RJ,
Thank you for your email. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field. The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player). While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").
Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety. Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.
David Hirsch
Vice President, Communications
Pac-12 Conference
360 3rd St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
direct. 415.549.2842 // cell. 415.370.7112
dhirsch@pac-12.org
pac-12.com/media-center
@pac12
---------------------------------------------
From: RJÂ
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:04 AM
To: dcoleman@pac-12.org
Subject: UCLA targeting
Importance: High
David,
Please take action against the officials for not properly calling the targeting by UCLA defenders (especially Tahaan Goodman) in the Stanford-UCLA football game on Saturday, September 24.
An analysis on the Stanford sports blog Rule of Tree at http://www.ruleoftree.com/2016/9/25/1304...last-night
shows a pattern of targeting that the officiating crew repeatedly failed to call. As Rule of Tree points out, UCLA defensive back Tahaan Goodman left his feet to deliver a hit from the top of his helmet to the head of Dalton Shultz, which was not called.
Later in the game, Francis Owusu was blatantly targeted by the same UCLA defender, Tahaan Goodman, which resulted in a fumble, which ESPN rated a worst play of the day. http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=17629772. During the broadcast, Kirk Herbsteit, Chris Fowler and ESPNs replay official all thought it was definitely targeting.
A sports photographer in Los Angeles also took the following photo that shows how dangerous and damaging that blow was. https://www.instagram.com/p/BKyUOc-BUlH/Â After that blow to the head, Francis Owusu had to leave the game and did not return.
Later in the game, quarterback Ryan Burns was hit/targeted in the head while running with the ball. The fact that the tackler appeared more shaken up than Burns is a reminder that targeting is extremely dangerous for both the defender and the player being struck.
If the conference and officiating crews do not enforce the targeting rule, how can parents feel that their children will be safe when they are recruited by Pac-12 football teams? If a UCLA player (or an opponent) is permanently injured this season or suffers later in life, is it possible that better enforcement of the targeting rule might have prevented it?
Other info:
Goodman was headhunting all day long, using his helmet as a weapon. At 1:55 left in the 2nd (after the Owusu hit), Bryce Love is being spun down in a tackle, and he comes flying through the screen, helmet again in a spearing position. This guy is out to inflict injury and knock people out of the game. Fortunately, Love's head gets down just in time to avoid the collision. At 6:32 left in the 4th, he again at full speed lowers his helmet and launches directly at Cam Scarlett's head and throws in a forearm as well. This is only what can be seen on the TV broadcast; I wouldn't be surprised if there were more off screen. Perhaps action against Goodman is also warranted?
The refs did a terrible job of protecting players. Not a single call was made for hits to the helmet all day. Burns took a forearm to the helmet from Judge as he was going down on a tackle on Stanford's first drive (a penalty was instead called on Caspers for holding). Burns took the helmet to helmet from Pickett at 5:50 in the 3rd. Pickett was clearly slow to get up and staggering, although the refs did nothing to help him get off the field and the coaches sent in a substitution. AT Hall was slapped/struck right in the helmet by McKinley at 0:55 left in the 2nd in plain view of the refs, no penalty except Dave Bright is called for a false start. This was obvious as well because the rest of the play had stopped because of the false start.
Thank you for your consideration and potential action.
RJ.
RJ. (my first post)
--------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Hirsch [mailto:dhirsch@pac-12.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 6:11 PM
To: RJ
Subject: Re: UCLA targeting
Importance: High
RJ,
Thank you for your email. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field. The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player). While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").
Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety. Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.
David Hirsch
Vice President, Communications
Pac-12 Conference
360 3rd St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
direct. 415.549.2842 // cell. 415.370.7112
dhirsch@pac-12.org
pac-12.com/media-center
@pac12
---------------------------------------------
From: RJÂ
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:04 AM
To: dcoleman@pac-12.org
Subject: UCLA targeting
Importance: High
David,
Please take action against the officials for not properly calling the targeting by UCLA defenders (especially Tahaan Goodman) in the Stanford-UCLA football game on Saturday, September 24.
An analysis on the Stanford sports blog Rule of Tree at http://www.ruleoftree.com/2016/9/25/1304...last-night
shows a pattern of targeting that the officiating crew repeatedly failed to call. As Rule of Tree points out, UCLA defensive back Tahaan Goodman left his feet to deliver a hit from the top of his helmet to the head of Dalton Shultz, which was not called.
Later in the game, Francis Owusu was blatantly targeted by the same UCLA defender, Tahaan Goodman, which resulted in a fumble, which ESPN rated a worst play of the day. http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=17629772. During the broadcast, Kirk Herbsteit, Chris Fowler and ESPNs replay official all thought it was definitely targeting.
A sports photographer in Los Angeles also took the following photo that shows how dangerous and damaging that blow was. https://www.instagram.com/p/BKyUOc-BUlH/Â After that blow to the head, Francis Owusu had to leave the game and did not return.
Later in the game, quarterback Ryan Burns was hit/targeted in the head while running with the ball. The fact that the tackler appeared more shaken up than Burns is a reminder that targeting is extremely dangerous for both the defender and the player being struck.
If the conference and officiating crews do not enforce the targeting rule, how can parents feel that their children will be safe when they are recruited by Pac-12 football teams? If a UCLA player (or an opponent) is permanently injured this season or suffers later in life, is it possible that better enforcement of the targeting rule might have prevented it?
Other info:
Goodman was headhunting all day long, using his helmet as a weapon. At 1:55 left in the 2nd (after the Owusu hit), Bryce Love is being spun down in a tackle, and he comes flying through the screen, helmet again in a spearing position. This guy is out to inflict injury and knock people out of the game. Fortunately, Love's head gets down just in time to avoid the collision. At 6:32 left in the 4th, he again at full speed lowers his helmet and launches directly at Cam Scarlett's head and throws in a forearm as well. This is only what can be seen on the TV broadcast; I wouldn't be surprised if there were more off screen. Perhaps action against Goodman is also warranted?
The refs did a terrible job of protecting players. Not a single call was made for hits to the helmet all day. Burns took a forearm to the helmet from Judge as he was going down on a tackle on Stanford's first drive (a penalty was instead called on Caspers for holding). Burns took the helmet to helmet from Pickett at 5:50 in the 3rd. Pickett was clearly slow to get up and staggering, although the refs did nothing to help him get off the field and the coaches sent in a substitution. AT Hall was slapped/struck right in the helmet by McKinley at 0:55 left in the 2nd in plain view of the refs, no penalty except Dave Bright is called for a false start. This was obvious as well because the rest of the play had stopped because of the false start.
Thank you for your consideration and potential action.
RJ.
