Targeting rule good or bad...

#FreeDevinWhite

Well neither of these guy would have seen the end of the game in today’s rules

quote:

---

#FreeDevinWhite

---

We freed him. Unfortunately to the Buccaneers

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.

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 ..

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.

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.

regardless, let the guy stay on the bench. Hauling them off the field is just stupid.

Adopt the rule how the NFL does it. Ridiculous how the player is kicked out of the game.

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.