Started By
Message

Targeting rule good or bad...
Posted on 5/21/20 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 5/21/20 at 9:01 pm
Flipped over to ESPN and caught Clemson vs Alabama Natty game on.
I have seen 2 targeting calls ( if today’s rules apply) just in 3rd quarter, that would be ejections. Both by defensive stars.
Boulware & Foster
Interesting, to reflect on old games and see the leading with helmet, I guess I kinda see why they trying to clean that up.
I have seen 2 targeting calls ( if today’s rules apply) just in 3rd quarter, that would be ejections. Both by defensive stars.
Boulware & Foster
Interesting, to reflect on old games and see the leading with helmet, I guess I kinda see why they trying to clean that up.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 9:05 pm to UnoMe
Targetting rules were in effect several years before that game, without replay review.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 9:07 pm to deeprig9
Well neither of these guy would have seen the end of the game in today’s rules
Posted on 5/21/20 at 9:11 pm to UnoMe
Called right good, not right, horrible.
Launch, intent, crown, target.
Incidental helmet contact or a offensive player falling it the the hit zone, bullshite.
Launch, intent, crown, target.
Incidental helmet contact or a offensive player falling it the the hit zone, bullshite.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 9:12 pm to Ted2010
quote:
#FreeDevinWhite
We freed him. Unfortunately to the Buccaneers
Posted on 5/21/20 at 9:21 pm to Sun God
quote:
We freed him. Unfortunately to the Buccaneers
Condolences

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.
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 ..
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:11 am to UnoMe
I get why the rule is there, and I agree with the sentiment. I just wish they would reserve the ejection for the more egregious calls. The incidental hits should be a penalty and nothing more. Not every head to head contact is intentional or avoidable.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 9:14 am to UnoMe
Understand the reasoning, find the execution lacking and debatable.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:10 am to UnoMe
The rule is fine as-is it just needs to be called on offensive players too.
Basically when helmet-to-helmet contact occurs the replay booth should make a determination on which player holds responsibility. I’ve seen a few calls where the tackling player was going for an otherwise clean tackle only to be called for targeting because the RB gave him a headbutt at the last second. I’d imaging some coaches are instructing RBs to try to draw targeting calls tbh.
As far as the ejection, maybe there does need to be some provision for leniency in freak situations, but the severe penalty is there to drive home to the players (and viewers) that safety is important to the collegiate variant of the game. Too much wiggle room would defeat the purpose.
Basically when helmet-to-helmet contact occurs the replay booth should make a determination on which player holds responsibility. I’ve seen a few calls where the tackling player was going for an otherwise clean tackle only to be called for targeting because the RB gave him a headbutt at the last second. I’d imaging some coaches are instructing RBs to try to draw targeting calls tbh.
As far as the ejection, maybe there does need to be some provision for leniency in freak situations, but the severe penalty is there to drive home to the players (and viewers) that safety is important to the collegiate variant of the game. Too much wiggle room would defeat the purpose.
This post was edited on 5/22/20 at 10:14 am
Posted on 5/22/20 at 10:13 am to UnoMe
regardless, let the guy stay on the bench. Hauling them off the field is just stupid.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 11:48 am to I-59 Tiger
Its a shitty rule controlled by shitty officials. Its football, folks.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 12:29 pm to UnoMe
Adopt the rule how the NFL does it. Ridiculous how the player is kicked out of the game.
Posted on 5/22/20 at 12:32 pm to UnoMe
What’s the point of playing football if you can’t take someone’s head off
Posted on 5/22/20 at 12:38 pm to PlateJohnsonIII
quote:
I’ve seen a few calls where the tackling player was going for an otherwise clean tackle only to be called for targeting because the RB gave him a headbutt at the last second. I’d imaging some coaches are instructing RBs to try to draw targeting calls tbh.
I see thus more with receivers and QBs lowering their bodies to brace for a hit, which causes the defensive player (who's already committed) to make an impossible play of getting even lower to make a "clean" tackle. With them also changing the rules to disallow hits below the knees (where we've also seen penalties called for hits to the hip or thigh), the rules have shrunk the tackling zone to something that really isn't feasible in a lot of instances. Essentially, these new rules for "player safety" have resulted in there being plays throughout a game where you have to make the choice of simply letting not hitting the offensive player or get called for a penalty and possibly ejected. It's a violent sport. You can only protect players so much. But at the end of the day, the players know what they signed up for at this point. There is no longer the ignorant card they can pull that they didn't know head injuries may be prevalent in football and cause long-lasting damage.
This post was edited on 5/22/20 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 5/22/20 at 12:44 pm to UnoMe
quote:
Flipped over to ESPN and caught Clemson vs Alabama Natty game on.
I have seen 2 targeting calls ( if today’s rules apply) just in 3rd quarter, that would be ejections. Both by defensive stars.
Boulware & Foster
Interesting, to reflect on old games and see the leading with helmet, I guess I kinda see why they trying to clean that up.
I'd like to see these plays you are talking about, because the #1 thing I've learned about targeting over the years is that most people don't really understand what is targeting and what is not.
Sadly, the refs seem to fall into that category more times than not.
The most common problem is people don't understand a guy running with the ball is not defenseless.
Popular
Back to top
