Started By
Message
Targeting Rule: How fair is it really?
Posted on 9/30/13 at 10:56 am
Posted on 9/30/13 at 10:56 am
This rule was designed to protect defenseless players by penalizing overly aggressive hits to the head/neck area or hits performed with the helmet. So far we have clearly seen the effects of this new rule. Defensive players do seem to think more about late hits and hits to the head. But there are some situations where this rule hurts the game of football. In many situations we have seen plays where the defensive player was simply playing the ball or the ball was thrown into the middle and there was no way for the defender/defenders to prevent from hitting the receiver illegally. Ejections have been reversed and that is a good thing when the wrong call was clearly made. The problem is the 15 yard penalty that cannot be changed. This will be an issue in a big game when this call is made and it effects the outcome.
16
Posted on 9/30/13 at 10:58 am to GoneGumping
i love spinoff threads
Posted on 9/30/13 at 10:58 am to GoneGumping
Agree if it's not targeting eliminate the penalty. Just because that penalty is reviewable doesn't mean all of them have to be. It is stupid to make a call then say it isn't what we thought and then penalize the team for something the player didn't do. It's stupid.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 10:58 am to GoneGumping
quote:
This rule was designed to protect defenseless players by penalizing overly aggressive hits to the head/neck area or hits performed with the helmet. S
Since we are talking in theory, Why is it the defenses job to protect an attacking player?
Posted on 9/30/13 at 10:59 am to GoneGumping
I agree. I'm fine with the rule, but they need to be able to reverse the penalty. That's just mind-blowingly retarded.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 10:59 am to GoneGumping
Since the refs are told to throw the flag when in doubt for targeting, then the penalty itself should be reviewable/reversible and not just the ejection.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:00 am to GoneGumping
You play the game - good and bad.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:01 am to GoneGumping
I find it hilarious this only becomes a problem for the general posting public once bama gets hit with it. When it was Everett, the consensus was it was a good and just rule.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:01 am to cokebottleag
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:01 am to sarc
quote:
Since the refs are told to throw the flag when in doubt for targeting, then the penalty itself should be reviewable/reversible and not just the ejection.
i agree with this
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:03 am to sarc
quote:
Since the refs are told to throw the flag when in doubt for targeting, then the penalty itself should be reviewable/reversible and not just the ejection.
This, although the rule itself doesn't bother me.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:03 am to Dire Wolf
Ok, my take on the targeting is this...if the penalty is SOLELY for targeting and is in turn reversed, then there should be no ejection or penalty yardage assessed. HOWEVER there should be penalty yardage assessed if the targeting was committed upon the comission of another separate penalty. Most common I suppose would be pass interference, they should be able to call a concurrent pass interference and targeting with the option to review the targeting ejection, yet assess the 15 yard pass interference foul.
Speaking of pass interference, why on earth is it not a spot foul yet? That's a rule that should be changed as well. Just my $.02!
Speaking of pass interference, why on earth is it not a spot foul yet? That's a rule that should be changed as well. Just my $.02!
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:08 am to Dire Wolf
Not sure if this the the point Wolf is making, but this rule clearly favors the offense and the defense is not taken into consideration at all. When a receiver makes a catch and lowers their head while at the same time the defender is going for a form tackle not expecting the receiver the lower the head then the defender was not targeting. Head collisions are going to happen in a sport where the object is to hit people...it's like trying to prevent people from drinking water when it keeps us alive.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:19 am to GoneGumping
Only thing I can figure is the NCAA is going with a "scorched earth" type strategy to eliminate these types of hits. They want to totally erase any mentality that these type hits are acceptable. Just my opinion.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:24 am to GoneGumping
I know an SEC ref and in talking to him I got the sense most of the refs do not like the rule. Despite all the conspiracy theories, they HATE injecting themselves into the game, and this is a rule where they're asked to err on the side of ejecting a player in a split second decision. I wouldn't be surprised to see some changes to its implementation next year. The intent of the rule is genuine, so I don't see it going away, but he led me to believe the refs are going to lobby for some modifications.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:26 am to h0bnail
quote:
I agree. I'm fine with the rule, but they need to be able to reverse the penalty. That's just mind-blowingly retarded.
^^^^^^ This
Eta: And I'm sure this has already been discussed, but SCAR was on the receiving-end of a bad targeting call this weekend in Orlando whereas the player was ejected then reinstated after the video review, but the 15 yard penalty stood and it made a difference in the final score.
This post was edited on 9/30/13 at 11:31 am
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:29 am to GoneGumping
My question is, what are they getting the penalty for, technically, if they don't get ejected? It can't be for 'targeting' since that was overturned in the booth. PF?
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:30 am to GoneGumping
quote:
GoneGumping
The good thing is that it's -very- clear to everyone so far that's paid any attention at all, so they will have to amend this. I'm stunned I haven't already heard of it changing the outcome of a game. Gonna get real bad once that starts happening.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:31 am to randomways
quote:
My question is, what are they getting the penalty for, technically, if they don't get ejected? It can't be for 'targeting' since that was overturned in the booth. PF?
Basically, the booth can't overturn a penalty called on the field.
Posted on 9/30/13 at 11:33 am to The Spleen
quote:
Basically, the booth can't overturn a penalty called on the field.
Yeah, except it doesn't make any sense. The penalty for 'targeting' isn't "15 yards." It's "15 yards and ejection of offending party" right? So they are overturning the penalty call, just not the entire punishment.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News