re: Targeting rule needs to be changed

There have been some absolute shitty calls this year....

But if you lead with your helmet, I have no sympathy for your ejection.

It is a bit of a double standard that you can do so if you are running the ball though...

quote:

---

Proposed by AAC officiating coordinator Terry McCauley.

There would be Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2 targeting penalties. A Flagrant 1 penalty, as determined by replay, would be for a less egregious and perhaps unintentional high hit. The penalty would be 15 yards and the player would remain in the game unless it’s his second targeting infraction, which would result in an ejection. In other words, Flagrant 1 would give a player the benefit of the doubt. Flagrant 2 would be the current penalty of automatic ejection but only for clear targeting plays.

---

On one hand, that would be better. On the other hand, I dont like the idea of 2 incidentals getting them ejected. Accidents happen. Sometimes it's out of the players control. They're going in for what would be a clean hit and the offensive player falls just right for it to end up as helmet to helmet. That shouldn't even draw a flag in my opinion.

I'm of the opinion that the penalty and ejection should only be for obvious intentional targeting. Or if it wasn't purely a circumstantial helmet to helmet hit. Meaning, it may not have been intentional targeting, but the offensive player didnt move/fall and the defensive player still hit them directly helmet to helmet.

The biggest issue with the targeting flag, and an issue that will almost always be present, is that it's an opinion flag.

quote:

---

Terrible call, and yall got hosed on a couple of others.

---

They also only reviewed it for 5 seconds. The announcers made sure to point that out.

Dude, Delpit wasn't aiming for knees to end Bama player careers.

That was Mizzou. You need to get your Tiger teams straight.

quote:

---

Y’all weren’t saying that when we bodied your QB.

---

That hit wasn't targeting and it was legal. However, Burrow was defenseless and the UCF player surely had malicious intent. Maybe unnecessary roughing like that chicken shite call y'all got when y'all were back up to your goal.
Regardless, your other player showed his arse with the taunting over an injured player. Enjoy your mickey league championship asshat.

quote:

---

The rule is fine as written for the most part.

---

Clearly it's not. It's not enforced uniformly. Plus, as another poster stated, sometime the momentum of the ball carrier carries them into a position where the helmet to helmet contact could not be avoided.

quote:

---

Delpit put his facemask right into the guys numbers on his chest. That's textbook perfect tackling technique.

---

No it isn't "textbook" by todays rules or standards, and no it isn't taught that way anymore by coaches concerned with players getting kicked out. You my friend need a refresher on the modern game. Leading with the helmet or facemask is no longer the way it is supposed to be done BY THE DAM RULES.

Let's all understand exactly what this is all about. THIS WHOLE LINE IS JUST ANOTHER LSU WHINE ABOUT REFS and how they cheat LSU and call bad stuff on them when they are all perfectly innocent and don't call stuff on the other team. This is amazing.. LSU players get called for fouls and now the entirety NCAA football needs to change the rules.

Make no mistake... if the rule was changed and an LUSer player was subsequently targeted, the LUSers would be on here demanding a rule change. It is what they do... it is always the refs against LSU. It is the most epic whine on this board...

LSU fan win or lose: "refs called this, refs didn't call that, refs coulda-woulda-shouda called those, Alabama was holding, cheat, SEC office in Birmingham, Steve Shaw, REC, Bama, refs let the other team play too rough, refs didn't let our team play football just touch football, Ritter, rules, FBI."

God it gets old...

quote:

---

Y’all weren’t saying that when we bodied your QB.

---

You play for the team?

quote:

---

But if you lead with your helmet

---

Some guys are leading with the helmet. They are going in with a shoulder but the momentum of the ball carrier etc and possibly other defenders changes the angle or point of contact.

I posted this on the Score Board regarding why the targeting rule will not be changed, but I’ll post it again here:

The targeting rule does not exist for player safety, even though it does in theory help to promote it. The targeting rule does not exist to “force players to use correct tackling technique,” even though it supposedly does that. The targeting rule is clearly not in line with other penalties in terms of severity, but that doesn’t matter. The targeting rule does promote tacklers to aim low and therefore potentially cause more knee injuries, but that doesn’t matter either.

The targeting rule exists for the NCAA to use in its defense in a hypothetical future lawsuit from former players over CTE. It will not be changed because of that reason.