Started By
Message
Explain the targeting rule?
Posted on 9/15/19 at 12:23 am
Posted on 9/15/19 at 12:23 am
I thought the targeting call was intended to curb concussions from over agressive play.
#1 Call is made
#2 Call is reviewed
#3 Decision is made (ejection)
When the rule was passed the decision process was to separate normal play from play intended to injure. Seems now this is not the case and the call leads to ejection even if play was unavoidable or unintentional.
Discuss.
#1 Call is made
#2 Call is reviewed
#3 Decision is made (ejection)
When the rule was passed the decision process was to separate normal play from play intended to injure. Seems now this is not the case and the call leads to ejection even if play was unavoidable or unintentional.
Discuss.
9
Posted on 9/15/19 at 12:24 am to Cheese Grits
A rule enforced only to the benefit of Alabama.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 12:25 am to Cheese Grits
Agree. I didn’t see all of them today but the call against Barmore in the Bama game was textbook tackle that we were taught since pewee but according to rules any contact with helmet is now called. It’s not going to change and we’ll just have to live with it unfortunately.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 12:33 am to Cheese Grits
When the new rules were put into effect, they estimated it would only reduce the number of targeting calls by 10%.
In the Kentucky game, the player crouched and with an upward or forward thrust contacted the helmet of the player with his helmet, leading with the crown.
That’s still going to be targeting. This year and next year. And the year after that.
From the rule book:
You can disagree with the rule and advocate for further changes. But it wasn’t a bad call in the sense of not following the rules.
In the Kentucky game, the player crouched and with an upward or forward thrust contacted the helmet of the player with his helmet, leading with the crown.
That’s still going to be targeting. This year and next year. And the year after that.
From the rule book:
quote:
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
quote:
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.
You can disagree with the rule and advocate for further changes. But it wasn’t a bad call in the sense of not following the rules.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 12:37 am to Cheese Grits
Honesty think there has to be show of intent or direct contact targeting the head of a player for it to be called.
If a defender is going low and the player being tackled then makes a move to go low as well which results in helmet to helmet shouldn’t be called.
Doesn’t matter the team, but a player shouldn’t be punished for a form tackle that results in targeting because the other player changes their angle at the last second.
If a defender is going low and the player being tackled then makes a move to go low as well which results in helmet to helmet shouldn’t be called.
Doesn’t matter the team, but a player shouldn’t be punished for a form tackle that results in targeting because the other player changes their angle at the last second.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 12:38 am to Cheese Grits
This post was edited on 9/15/19 at 12:41 am
Posted on 9/15/19 at 12:44 am to TigerOnTheMountain
quote:
A rule enforced only to the benefit of Alabama.
It certainly benefited a lot of teams not named Alabama today.
The rule is awful and needs to be fixed.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 12:49 am to labamafan
The thing is, targeting could have been called on three consecutive plays there (that one and the two before it).
Posted on 9/15/19 at 2:27 am to Cheese Grits
Hits leading above the face mask (crown of helmet) result in being disqualified....I don’t agree with the rule...but it is pretty clear.
If every team is held to that standard so be it. I’m waiting to see what happens when a major contender gets flagged to see what happens.
If every team is held to that standard so be it. I’m waiting to see what happens when a major contender gets flagged to see what happens.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:23 am to the808bass
quote:
You can disagree with the rule and advocate for further changes.
I don't disagree with the rule as intended, just after so many years it does affect game outcomes and seems the review is pointless if it does not address intent in moving forward with ejection.
It reminds me a bit of flopping in college basketball and one coach making a career out of it. Sure, it may be the rule, but excess penalty makes the rule ring a bit too hollow.
Viewed a different way, shortly after Bobby Knight got canned from Indiana he did an interview that subsequently disappeared from any further rebroadcast. In it he said the NCAA should care less about the kids being in the gamblers pockets to shave points and more into refs shaving or altering outcomes by the media companies having massive coin invested in specific outcomes that helped their ratings narratives.
In short, the team the media wants to lose finds their game changing point guard with 2 PF's in the first two mins of the game. Then on the backside, late in the game and the result no longer in doubt, they call even up fouls so it looks less obvious in the final game stats.
While no fan of Knight on many issues I did give him credit for some observations of the game. This one stuck with me and now and again a game is played where he might have been onto something. Targeting feels like this has entered similar territory.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:39 am to Cheese Grits
In many cases it’s the pussification of football.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:40 am to Cheese Grits
Offensive player ducks his head when he sees contact coming. Automatic first down
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:42 am to Cheese Grits
Sorry, no one can explain the targeting rule.
The people who came up with the rule are all survivors of concussions and they have a hard time remembering what they had for breakfast much less a rule they created in July.
The people who came up with the rule are all survivors of concussions and they have a hard time remembering what they had for breakfast much less a rule they created in July.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:44 am to TigerOnTheMountain
quote:
A rule enforced only to the benefit of Alabama.
...also see "Holding" on punt returns and fake kicks against
USCe had not played Bama for 9 yrs. Now you see why fans like LSU and Aub complain about Bama bias in the refs. They get every break whether is a missed call, phantom call, or no call...
Posted on 9/15/19 at 8:46 am to GetmorewithLes
quote:
...also see "Holding" on punt returns and fake kicks against
They were basically tackling Carolina’s receivers all game. And that was before the ball was thrown.
This post was edited on 9/15/19 at 8:47 am
Posted on 9/15/19 at 9:09 am to Tigerbait357
quote:
The rule is awful and needs to be fixed.
And they still miss plays that it should be called.
Somebody should put some billboards up.
Posted on 9/15/19 at 9:14 am to Rohan Gravy
Keep your eyes up and aim low and you’ll be fine most of the time. If a player puts their head down, they’re going to call it
Posted on 9/15/19 at 9:18 am to Rohan Gravy
If both players have on uniforms and they look at each other it's targeting. Seriously, if the defender is squatted down to engage in a tackle around the chest or waist and the offensive player lowers his head, it should absolutely never be called targeting. It is getting ridiculous.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News