Started By
Message
re: The targeting call on Battle last night...
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:01 am to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:01 am to SummerOfGeorge
According to the rules it was a legit targeting call. I hate it for the fella but that's just how it goes. He at least gets a ring for a consolation prize. Roll Tide.
0
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:01 am to Goldtide1
Targeting for sure. Rules are rules. Problem is that most targeting penalties are not on purpose. It's a split second reaction. Meanwhile players actually trying to hurt someone via alligator rolls get to keep playing.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:02 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Option 3: keep his head up and drive his shoulder into him.
Agree. You can't lower your head. You just can't.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:02 am to The Spleen
That is the problem with the ejections IMO - sure there are missed calls but those looked very similar. So a missed call or a similar play that isn't called the same both times isn't terrible for a 15 yard penalty, but when ejections are in the mix you start putting major game implications on bang bang, judgement calls by the refs.
It think call a targeting an unsportsmanlike or whatever and if there are 2 then an ejection is warranted - or wrap the ejection call in with intent / clear launch. A lot of these ejections aren't really warranted IMO.
It think call a targeting an unsportsmanlike or whatever and if there are 2 then an ejection is warranted - or wrap the ejection call in with intent / clear launch. A lot of these ejections aren't really warranted IMO.
This post was edited on 1/12/21 at 9:04 am
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:02 am to artompkins
quote:The equipment staff better be devising a pad/brace for Battle's helmet or neck (ala Reuben Foster) if he keep this shite up.
I thought it was a good call and dumb by battle to do it. Ball would have been knocked loose no matter what and he had help on the play.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:03 am to Goldtide1
Targeting needs to be updated. It shouldn't be an auto ejection unless it's egregious, which I know would require what we have now, determining intent.
That one wasn't intentional, and should have at worse case been a penalty.
That one wasn't intentional, and should have at worse case been a penalty.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:04 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
That one wasn't intentional, and should have at worse case been a penalty.
How is lowering his head like he did not intentional? Did he sneeze?
This post was edited on 1/12/21 at 9:07 am
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:04 am to BamaGradinTn
It was a legit targeting call for sure. I think the tough ones are when the def player is going for mid section tackle and the offensive guy lowers his head causing the helmet to helmet
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:07 am to Goldtide1
It was targeting. I just don't get why players can get at least two personal fouls before being ejected. But with targeting, you can accidentally initiate helmet-to-helmet contact and get thrown out of the game for the first foul. Let the other team get the 15 yards, but allow the one player to stay in the game unless he has another targeting foul.
Targeting is the most bull shite rule in CFB.
Targeting is the most bull shite rule in CFB.
This post was edited on 1/12/21 at 9:09 am
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:07 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Targeting needs to be updated. It shouldn't be an auto ejection unless it's egregious, which I know would require what we have now, determining intent.
Did the player launch? If yes, ejection. If no, 15 yard penalty. If he gets a second targeting that doesn't involve launching then he gets ejected.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:15 am to Lonnie Utah
Pretty sure the buckeyes only scored one TD in the second half after Banks went out. So next man up was plenty good enough.
College football today is almost completely void of headhunting. If you simply allowed it helmets would be flying once again at the speed of light. Hits, as we witnessed against Kyle Pitts, in the Georgia game, that physically was damaging to both players, is just plain STUPID. Thankfully, they are few and far between these days.
College football today is almost completely void of headhunting. If you simply allowed it helmets would be flying once again at the speed of light. Hits, as we witnessed against Kyle Pitts, in the Georgia game, that physically was damaging to both players, is just plain STUPID. Thankfully, they are few and far between these days.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:20 am to SummerOfGeorge
I’ll grant you the defensive player safety argument. I’m not qualified to debate human physiology and how different body positions are more/less prone to injuries so I’m not going to attempt debating that any further.
With that said, the methods used in administrating the penalty needs to be changed. Whether that’s a 5 and 15 yard version or what you are suggesting, a change to it should be made. Battle made a split second decision that involved no deliberate thought; zero intent on injuring the other player, and was instantly ejected for it.
I don’t think you are pushing back on this point, only the defensive player safety issue as it relates to lowering the head. I’m just further elaborating on my point that there needs to be a change. However, I doubt it ever will be at this point, because it’s hard to renege whatsoever on a rule they implemented to specifically protect player safety.
With that said, the methods used in administrating the penalty needs to be changed. Whether that’s a 5 and 15 yard version or what you are suggesting, a change to it should be made. Battle made a split second decision that involved no deliberate thought; zero intent on injuring the other player, and was instantly ejected for it.
I don’t think you are pushing back on this point, only the defensive player safety issue as it relates to lowering the head. I’m just further elaborating on my point that there needs to be a change. However, I doubt it ever will be at this point, because it’s hard to renege whatsoever on a rule they implemented to specifically protect player safety.
This post was edited on 1/12/21 at 11:18 am
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:22 am to Goldtide1
I think penalty yardage should stay the same, but remove the ejection.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:22 am to pvilleguru
It was targeting but it shouldn’t be an auto ejection.
Another issue I have is that Ohio State did the same thing to Najee Harris on that arrow route inside the 5, but since the DB just bounced off of Najee because he’s a tank, and Najee actually held onto the ball, it wasn’t called. The call shouldn’t depend on the outcome of the play
Another issue I have is that Ohio State did the same thing to Najee Harris on that arrow route inside the 5, but since the DB just bounced off of Najee because he’s a tank, and Najee actually held onto the ball, it wasn’t called. The call shouldn’t depend on the outcome of the play
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:25 am to JoseyWalesTheOutlaw
Kinda, it depends... He did launch himself forward, and he did hit the dude in the helmet. So by rule even if he used his shoulder or hands it would still be targeting. Hell Devin White got a targeting call for trying to slow himself down after a blown call and bumped the qb in the neck with his hands and got targeting. It's a dumb rule the way it is worded.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:26 am to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Another issue I have is that Ohio State did the same thing to Najee Harris on that arrow route inside the 5, but since the DB just bounced off of Najee because he’s a tank, and Najee actually held onto the ball, it wasn’t called. The call shouldn’t depend on the outcome of the play
I think what saved him there was that he kept his head a little more up and Naseem hit him more in the side of the helmet instead of directly in the crown.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:31 am to Goldtide1
quote:
The targeting call on Battle last night...
Was the right call. I hated it for Battle, I know he wasn't trying to be malicious, but that was textbook. I do think they need to do away with the automatic ejection, however.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:32 am to Robot Santa
quote:
quote:
Targeting needs to be updated. It shouldn't be an auto ejection unless it's egregious, which I know would require what we have now, determining intent.
Did the player launch? If yes, ejection. If no, 15 yard penalty. If he gets a second targeting that doesn't involve launching then he gets ejected.
this is how I think it should work as well - clear launch / headhunting is automatic ejection, otherwise you get a yellow card so to speak
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:33 am to Goldtide1
Here's the bottom line. Football is a sport predicated on violent collisions. You can't legislate safety into a violent activity
Also, the rules are designed to enhance offensive production, thus keeping millennials, etc, effectively engaged in the game. IE: note facemask penalties only called on defensive players. Note the lack of targeting calls on RB's who lower their heads and launch into a defender.
Should the rule be changed/modified again? Intent is vague and means you have to get inside a dudes head to know what he was thinking. Using the pro rule where there is no ejection would be a step forward.
I personally don't think that the hit Battle made was intentionally high and don't recall that he launched. Bama already had a comfortable lead so the uproar from the masses wasn't nearly as loud as it would have been in a closer, more competitive game.
Also, the rules are designed to enhance offensive production, thus keeping millennials, etc, effectively engaged in the game. IE: note facemask penalties only called on defensive players. Note the lack of targeting calls on RB's who lower their heads and launch into a defender.
Should the rule be changed/modified again? Intent is vague and means you have to get inside a dudes head to know what he was thinking. Using the pro rule where there is no ejection would be a step forward.
I personally don't think that the hit Battle made was intentionally high and don't recall that he launched. Bama already had a comfortable lead so the uproar from the masses wasn't nearly as loud as it would have been in a closer, more competitive game.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:34 am to Goldtide1
Textbook target. You really can't be upset over it. Rules are rules
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News