Lightfoot personal foul video

Going through the full game now and seeing the end zone camera. I’ll let you guys all decide, because to me there’s no way in **** this is a penalty

View attachment 374323

I was wrong.

That’s a terrible call.

The QB initiated the contact.

/And got drilled for a second time by the same guy, on the same play.
Good on you man. Rare for this to happen. Props!
 
Being real real, he made a game losing roughing the passer for no reason against SMU. Stuff like this is like they’re not learning. I get it didn’t “matter” here but personal fouls lose you games. Blounts cost us dearly in the title game.

Two things can be true:
1) it was a terrible call that shouldn’t have been made; AND
2) Lightfoot should try to avoid the contact in that situation because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
 
Being real real, he made a game losing roughing the passer for no reason against SMU. Stuff like this is like they’re not learning. I get it didn’t “matter” here but personal fouls lose you games. Blounts cost us dearly in the title game.

Two things can be true:
1) it was a terrible call that shouldn’t have been made; AND
2) Lightfoot should try to avoid the contact in that situation because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
it’s a contact sport. guys playing scared of contact when others are initiating contact are more likely to get hurt.

shying away from contact with a guy looking to initiate could easily end up with Lightfoot hurt. LF made the correct play here. And if you coach it different; you end up with guys “loafing” which WILL cost us games.

it’s on the coaches/admin to do their part and fight with the ACC about it. and they should be publicly backing our guys instead of playing *****
 
it’s a contact sport. guys playing scared of contact when others are initiating contact are more likely to get hurt.

shying away from contact with a guy looking to initiate could easily end up with Lightfoot hurt. LF made the correct play here. And if you coach it different; you end up with guys “loafing” which WILL cost us games.

it’s on the coaches/admin to do their part and fight with the ACC about it. and they should be publicly backing our guys instead of playing *****


The Office Thank You GIF

You also start thinking instead of playing and end up a step behind
 
Being real real, he made a game losing roughing the passer for no reason against SMU. Stuff like this is like they’re not learning. I get it didn’t “matter” here but personal fouls lose you games. Blounts cost us dearly in the title game.
That was a horse **** call and you know it. He clearly didn't hear the whistle and when he did he held up and stopped himself from completely demolishing Jennings. Mario was livid. They literally never call that when a guy tries to hold up in that situation. So stop with that nonsense.
 
I think we can all acknowledge that this is confusing because it involves multiple rules.

@Calinative - you posted a rule from the San Diego County Football Officials Association, so just an FYI, I don't think that has the complete information, and it may not be up-to-date as the NCAA updates the rulebook each year. They even updated part of the targeted rules this year.

I download the NCAA rulebook each season, because I'm a nerd like that, so here's the link to the current 2026 version.


Cali is correct that we have to first look at Rule 2-27-14 (p.50 of the pdf above):

Defenseless Player

ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
Change of possession is defined in the rules as including the moment a turnover (interception or fumble) occurs. (p. 37)

The term "defenseless" refers to the targeting, roughing the passer, or unnecessary roughness/late hit penalties. Rule 9-1 explains that "all fouls in this section...and any other acts of unnecessary roughness are personal fouls." (p.100) Unnecessary roughness does not have it's own section; the sections listed and described next are Targeting, Clipping, Blocking Below the Waist, Late Hit, Face Mask, Roughing the Passer, Chop Block, Leverage and Leaping, Contact Out of Play, Hurdling, Contact Against Snapper, Horsecollar, Roughing Kicker/Holder, Participation w/o Helmet, and Blind-Side Block.

The Appendix of the Rulebook has explanations and examples of the rules and how they work in practice. I usually find these very helpful. p.233 is the closest example to our situation here, although it's not exact.

Approved Ruling 9-1-4 (p.233)

A12 who normally plays quarterback is lined up as a wide receiver in the backfield and A33 is five yards behind the snapper in a shotgun formation. A33’s pass intended for A12 is intercepted. During the interception return B55 targets and launches at A33, striking him in the side of the helmet.

RULING: Foul by B55 for targeting and initiating contact at the head of a defenseless player. For purposes of Rule 2-27-14, A33 is a defenseless player since he played the down in the role of the quarterback.

**Conclusion: So yes, I realize that this is a targeting penalty, but if I am reading the entirety of Rule 9-1, I don't think we need to focus on that part. I can't find anything else that says that the QB wouldn't be a defenseless player, and given the way the rule is written, it seems like they made it so "unnecessary roughness" is basically a catch-all for when the player is defenseless but the offender didn't commit any of the long list of penalties above. I don't like it, and think it sucks, but unfortunately I think the ACC got this one right. Also, Cali is correct here.
 
Uh. I I am saying what you yourself just said was a block from the side, 20+ yards away and against the qb is getting called likely every time. And Lightfoot should learn better judgement to not do that there. Pretty simple. You can believe it isn’t all you want but you wouldn’t be in reality on how it’s officiated.
You dont have a family or a cat at least you can bother and lay off CiS for a day?? How are you so loud and wrong all the time?
 
Another thing I would add with plays like this in general is for them to use common sense. If its that far back in the play, mark the personal foul off on the PAT or kickoff. Wilson was scoring regardless of that soft *** hit on the QB.
 
I think we can all acknowledge that this is confusing because it involves multiple rules.

@Calinative - you posted a rule from the San Diego County Football Officials Association, so just an FYI, I don't think that has the complete information, and it may not be up-to-date as the NCAA updates the rulebook each year. They even updated part of the targeted rules this year.

I download the NCAA rulebook each season, because I'm a nerd like that, so here's the link to the current 2026 version.


Cali is correct that we have to first look at Rule 2-27-14 (p.50 of the pdf above):

Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
Change of possession is defined in the rules as including the moment a turnover (interception or fumble) occurs. (p. 37)

The term "defenseless" refers to the targeting, roughing the passer, or unnecessary roughness/late hit penalties. Rule 9-1 explains that "all fouls in this section...and any other acts of unnecessary roughness are personal fouls." (p.100) Unnecessary roughness does not have it's own section; the sections listed and described next are Targeting, Clipping, Blocking Below the Waist, Late Hit, Face Mask, Roughing the Passer, Chop Block, Leverage and Leaping, Contact Out of Play, Hurdling, Contact Against Snapper, Horsecollar, Roughing Kicker/Holder, Participation w/o Helmet, and Blind-Side Block.

The Appendix of the Rulebook has explanations and examples of the rules and how they work in practice. I usually find these very helpful. p.233 is the closest example to our situation here, although it's not exact.

Approved Ruling 9-1-4 (p.233)

A12 who normally plays quarterback is lined up as a wide receiver in the backfield and A33 is five yards behind the snapper in a shotgun formation. A33’s pass intended for A12 is intercepted. During the interception return B55 targets and launches at A33, striking him in the side of the helmet.

RULING: Foul by B55 for targeting and initiating contact at the head of a defenseless player. For purposes of Rule 2-27-14, A33 is a defenseless player since he played the down in the role of the quarterback.

**Conclusion: So yes, I realize that this is a targeting penalty, but if I am reading the entirety of Rule 9-1, I don't think we need to focus on that part. I can't find anything else that says that the QB wouldn't be a defenseless player, and given the way the rule is written, it seems like they made it so "unnecessary roughness" is basically a catch-all for when the player is defenseless but the offender didn't commit any of the long list of penalties above. I don't like it, and think it sucks, but unfortunately I think the ACC got this one right. Also, Cali is correct here.
A gigantically long paragraph only to be wrong for aforementioned reasons.

I'm impressed. None of the things listed occurred. QB in question initiated contact and was shoved to the ground. That's a legal play in every instance. Cali is not correct, never has been in the entirety of this conversation but at least thanks for posting the rule and underlining my point factually.
 
A gigantically long paragraph only to be wrong for aforementioned reasons.

I'm impressed. None of the things listed occurred. QB in question initiated contact and was shoved to the ground. That's a legal play in every instance. Cali is not correct, never has been in the entirety of this conversation but at least thanks for posting the rule and underlining my point factually.
Right, but I couldn't find anything in the rulebook that changes anything if the QB initiates contact. If you can find it, I'm happy to be wrong.

Until then, it's just your opinion.
 
Right, but I couldn't find anything in the rulebook that changes anything if the QB initiates contact. If you can find it, I'm happy to be wrong.

Until then, it's just your opinion.
They want to be sticklers for the letter of the law when the actual reality on the field and how refs actually call games is this is called legit every time. Its not complicated. Significantly behind action of the play + on a QB + QB ends on ground after block + Not directly from the front... The single most protected player in the sport on a down by down basis gets hit "hard" for "no reason"...

They keep arguing whether this should or shouldn't be a foul. I'm arguing Lightfoot shouldn't have done this and our players need better judgement (in the moment sure) in the future when to hold off, because this is obviously going to get called. It doesn't matter if it SHOULD or not. And everyone posting in this thread knows if it is ND or a playoff game you would not want Lightfoot making that block there
 
Back
Top