Started By
Message
re: Targeting rule good or bad...
Posted on 5/21/20 at 9:23 pm to UnoMe
Posted on 5/21/20 at 9:23 pm to UnoMe
Should be broken down into two categories
1. Targeting without malice - 15 yard penalty and automatic 1st down.
This is inadvertent contact to the head or neck of a player. The Illegal contact was unintentional and not premeditated or performed with intent.
Most targeting is this type. An example would be when Clemson’s linebacker Skalski was ejected in the championship game.
2) Intentional Targeting with Malice - the intentional lowering of the head with the intent to use the crown of the helmet for contact or intentional Contact to a players head and / or neck area with malice.
An example would be Oklahoma’s Radley-Hiles‘ hit on CEH in the Peach bowl.
15 yard penalty, 1st down, player ejected for remainder of game. If penalty takes place in the fourth quarter, the player is out for first quarter of the next game.
1. Targeting without malice - 15 yard penalty and automatic 1st down.
This is inadvertent contact to the head or neck of a player. The Illegal contact was unintentional and not premeditated or performed with intent.
Most targeting is this type. An example would be when Clemson’s linebacker Skalski was ejected in the championship game.
2) Intentional Targeting with Malice - the intentional lowering of the head with the intent to use the crown of the helmet for contact or intentional Contact to a players head and / or neck area with malice.
An example would be Oklahoma’s Radley-Hiles‘ hit on CEH in the Peach bowl.
15 yard penalty, 1st down, player ejected for remainder of game. If penalty takes place in the fourth quarter, the player is out for first quarter of the next game.
2
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:02 am to Wtxtiger
I get the distinctions you're trying to make, but you need to work on the verbiage "targetting without malice" is nonsense. Targeting is, by definition, malicious and intentional.
The college rulebook has no specified requirement of intent, so that is where things get muddy in the enforcement. I agree they should add some options for unintentional helmet to helmet tackles to be penalized as unnecessary roughness or add another unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, call it "illegal hit" or "dangerous tackle" or something. with the penalty for that being 15 yards and the player's first unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. I think football should add penalties that hold a player out for an extended period of time like hockey, but falls short of ejection.
The college rulebook has no specified requirement of intent, so that is where things get muddy in the enforcement. I agree they should add some options for unintentional helmet to helmet tackles to be penalized as unnecessary roughness or add another unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, call it "illegal hit" or "dangerous tackle" or something. with the penalty for that being 15 yards and the player's first unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. I think football should add penalties that hold a player out for an extended period of time like hockey, but falls short of ejection.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:11 am to Wtxtiger
Facemask is facemask malice or not ...
Targeting with malice ...Targeting without
Now we are trying to make stripes into mind readers.
A concussion is a concussion whether it's intentional or not
Review, vote guilty ..to the showers ..
Targeting with malice ...Targeting without
Now we are trying to make stripes into mind readers.
A concussion is a concussion whether it's intentional or not
Review, vote guilty ..to the showers ..
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News