Started By
Message
My thoughts on the targeting rule
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:33 pm
We have all seen players getting ejected for targeting and some are really ridiculous.
The main reason is player safety to me. It’s not necessarily the short term injury potential but the long term health of the players.
Who wants to have our son or family member end up physically or mentally handicapped.
I understand us fans bitching about targeting calls but I’d rather have that than ending up like a lot of players with scrambled eggs for a brain. What do you guys think?
The main reason is player safety to me. It’s not necessarily the short term injury potential but the long term health of the players.
Who wants to have our son or family member end up physically or mentally handicapped.
I understand us fans bitching about targeting calls but I’d rather have that than ending up like a lot of players with scrambled eggs for a brain. What do you guys think?
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:35 pm to Bbobalou
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/14/18 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:37 pm to Bbobalou
Thank you for your thoughts, but frick your thoughts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:38 pm to Bbobalou
Maybe instead of every targeting penalty carrying an ejection, make it two targeting penalties cumulatively in a season forces you to miss the entire next game. Or maybe the NCAA can create a review board to look at all of the targeting calls on Sunday and dish out suspensions for the next week based on severity.
I've never been a fan of a player being immediately ejected for one of these fouls because most of them don't seem to be done with any kind of bad intent.
I don't have a problem with them calling the fouls. Player safety has to be addressed and head hits need to be removed from the game when a player is defenseless, and certainly spearing should not be a part of the game for the dangers associated with the guy being hit and the guy doing the hitting.
I've never been a fan of a player being immediately ejected for one of these fouls because most of them don't seem to be done with any kind of bad intent.
I don't have a problem with them calling the fouls. Player safety has to be addressed and head hits need to be removed from the game when a player is defenseless, and certainly spearing should not be a part of the game for the dangers associated with the guy being hit and the guy doing the hitting.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:38 pm to Bbobalou
The refs are being told by the SEC office when in doubt...call targeting and let the replay officials sort it out. Sometimes it's right, and sometimes it's not.
This post was edited on 11/14/18 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:41 pm to Bbobalou
Nobody’s forcing them to play football, I say add spikes to shoulder pads.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:42 pm to Bbobalou
In addition to long term damage mentally you have the schools potentially being held responsible for it. We already see the NFL being sued for shite like that.
I’m not necessarily advocating the rule but I can see why it’s there.
I’m not necessarily advocating the rule but I can see why it’s there.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:43 pm to Bbobalou
Go back to using leather helmets with no face masks. Targeting, leading with head would disappear quickly.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:43 pm to Bbobalou
I think it was a good rule to change the way the game is played and has been successful. You rarely see a defenseless receiver being decapitated trying to make a catch. Now that the fundamentals have been changed on the field, I think they can further evolve the rule to include intent.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:44 pm to Bbobalou
Take the face masks off the helmets and you will be less likely to lead with your face.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:45 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Haha, you said but frick.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:47 pm to Jacknola
quote:
Go back to using leather helmets with no face masks. Targeting, leading with head would disappear quickly.
You realize that the face mask covers the face. That is the part that the NCAA and NFL wants you to use. Ever hear of Heads Up Football?
The trouble is with tackling using the crown (top) of the head.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 1:53 pm to Bbobalou
Unless you are on the NCAA rules committee keep your thoughts to yourself.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 2:00 pm to Bham Bammer
I have been thinking about something like this too.
15 yrd penalty and first down but instead of ejection treat it like and unsportsmanlike penalty that carries over to the next game.ifthey receive any type of unsportsmanlike penalty then they are ejected from a half of football.
15 yrd penalty and first down but instead of ejection treat it like and unsportsmanlike penalty that carries over to the next game.ifthey receive any type of unsportsmanlike penalty then they are ejected from a half of football.
This post was edited on 11/14/18 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 11/14/18 at 2:04 pm to Bbobalou
Get rid of "targeting" fricking all together. If there's a hit that's too high up or that's leading withe the crown call it a 15 yard unsportsmanlike and kick the dude out. The IDEA of the targeting penalty sounds good but in reality the interpretation and calling of it has been an absolute mess. There's no reason to have a penalty that specific (and ambiguous where it's not even called correctly many times) when a simple unsportsmanlike will do.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 2:12 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Get rid of "targeting" fricking all together. If there's a hit that's too high up or that's leading withe the crown call it a 15 yard unsportsmanlike and kick the dude out. The IDEA of the targeting penalty sounds good but in reality the interpretation and calling of it has been an absolute mess. There's no reason to have a penalty that specific (and ambiguous where it's not even called correctly many times) when a simple unsportsmanlike will do.
Because calling 15 yards and throwing the player out of the game will cut down on fans bitching about the call? How is this substantively different from targeting calls?
As for people advocating a change in headwear, it's a popular theory but doesn't hold up. People got injured and even killed in the leather helmet days. It wasn't safer and was far worse in many ways. Helmets don't just protect you when you're aiming during tackling. They protect you in every other aspect of the game too. You want to be on the bottom of a pile with a half-dozen guys pressing down on your thin leather helmet?
Posted on 11/14/18 at 2:15 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Thank you for your thoughts, butt frick your thoughts
FIFY
Posted on 11/14/18 at 2:15 pm to randomways
quote:
Because calling 15 yards and throwing the player out of the game will cut down on fans bitching about the call? How is this substantively different from targeting calls?
due to the targeting call simply existing, refs somehow feel forced to look for it and call it. Take the devin white ejection. If targeting didn't exist, there is no way no how that he is not only flagged but thrown out of the game. Instead of thinking "well did this player "target"? Did he lower his head? Did he hit the other guy's helmet? Or hit him higher htan he should?" etc etc it woudl sipmly be "was this an unsportsmanlike play deserving of a penalty"?
It woudl just make making a snap, split second judgment call easier IMO without the idea of a targeting call looming in their minds all game.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 2:17 pm to Bbobalou
I don't think anyone debates the need for player safety. The issue that I've seen with the targeting rule:
1) It's applied with no consistency.
2) There needs to be levels of it because I've seem some pretty flagrant targeting, and I've seen players try their best not to target but they do.
3) There needs to be more formal review process Monday if there is a suspension.
4) There needs to be an appeal process.
5) I'd be ok making the penalties stiffer for a flagrant targeting (one that is deemed intentional when the player makes zero effort to avert).
1) It's applied with no consistency.
2) There needs to be levels of it because I've seem some pretty flagrant targeting, and I've seen players try their best not to target but they do.
3) There needs to be more formal review process Monday if there is a suspension.
4) There needs to be an appeal process.
5) I'd be ok making the penalties stiffer for a flagrant targeting (one that is deemed intentional when the player makes zero effort to avert).
Posted on 11/14/18 at 2:19 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
1) It's applied with no consistency.
2) There needs to be levels of it because I've seem some pretty flagrant targeting, and I've seen players try their best not to target but they do.
3) There needs to be more formal review process Monday if there is a suspension
all of this. An appeal process is worthless because no governing body (be it the SEC, NCAA, whatever) is going to admit to being wrong and overturning a call 2 days after the fact. But I agree with 1-3 wholeheartedly. It's like the rule was added to protect a ballcarrier's head (which is fine) but there is zero consistency on actually calling that correctly.
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News