Targeting Calls

Donate To GopherHole
BilldGopher

BilldGopher

Section 211
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,245
Reaction score
3,588
Points
113
Unless you saw it in real time those of us there did not have the benefit of replay for the targeting calls (see other thread).

I think I heard the calls were good. Has the NCAA tightened the rules on what constitutes targeting...and if yes...do we have a technique, timing, or aggressiveness problem that needs to be worked?

I'm sure the BTN team discussed these calls as they came up. It will be interesting to see if this shows up in other games this weekend.
 

Too bad they couldn't get that targeting call on Leidner in the Ohio $tate game correct...

...oh wait, they did, 8 mos later.
 

Gopher028 said:
Too bad they couldn't get that targeting call on Leidner in the Ohio $tate game correct...

...oh wait, they did, 8 mos later.
Click to expand...
Actually the changes in the targeting rule where partly due to the botched call on Leidner last year.
 

I was at the game so didn't get to see replays but I can say that CP12's hit was 100% a cheap shot. So dumb and stupid. He deserved the boot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Spoofin said:
I was at the game so didn't get to see replays but I can say that CP12's hit was 100% a cheap shot. So dumb and stupid. He deserved the boot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yep, and gave them their first touchdown.
 


I thought Celestin's was the only one that maybe was a bad call - other two were targeting for sure in my opinion.
 

I did not think Poock's was targeting. Those were Pac 12 officials. No way Big Ten officials call those. Devers was questionable too. Celestin was only helmet to helmet hit. The others the forcible contact was below the head and neck. Hit on Leidner last year was way way worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



GopherHomer said:
I thought Celestin's was the only one that maybe was a bad call - other two were targeting for sure in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Hit with crown/top of helmet. 100% correct call. Devers needs to lower target. On second strip sack he was up around the head as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

I think all of the calls were correct, but I was frustrated by all the no calls Mitch got.
 

Watching at home on TV the calls looked like they were correct, the rule is just stupid.
 

The calls are probably correct by what the rule is. It's just the rule is really stupid.

On the Celestin play, I still feel like he committed to the tackle before the QB started sliding. How is a defender supposed to predict what the offensive player is going to do? Pretty much impossible to just stop your movement at that point in my opinion.

On the Devers play, yes there was helmet to helmet contact but the majority of the contact was shoulder to shoulder. Fine throw a flag, but it shouldn't be an automatic ejection.
 



GophersInIowa said:
The calls are probably correct by what the rule is. It's just the rule is really stupid.
Click to expand...

I really really don't like how a targeting penalty is an ejection. IMO ejections should only be issued for unsportsmanlike conduct, fighting, taunting and other extra circular activities. All of those targeting calls were legit football plays that are always going to happen in the course of a game and should not be ejectable. It's just as asinine to eject someone for targeting is it would be for a face mask or horse collar penalty. 85% of the time, the hit is in no way intended to be dirty, just some mistiming.
 

The safety of the game won't change if it's not an ejection. The goal is to change how players hit and tackle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

die hard gopher said:
I really really don't like how a targeting penalty is an ejection. IMO ejections should only be issued for unsportsmanlike conduct, fighting, taunting and other extra circular activities. All of those targeting calls were legit football plays that are always going to happen in the course of a game and should not be ejectable. It's just as asinine to eject someone for targeting is it would be for a face mask or horse collar penalty. 85% of the time, the hit is in no way intended to be dirty, just some mistiming.
Click to expand...
Targeting should be called when there's some intent to injure by leading with your helmet. The way that the rule is written now, they are basically expecting defenders to defy the laws of physics by stopping or greatly altering their motion in mid air based on what a ball carrier does.
 

die hard gopher said:
I really really don't like how a targeting penalty is an ejection. IMO ejections should only be issued for unsportsmanlike conduct, fighting, taunting and other extra circular activities. All of those targeting calls were legit football plays that are always going to happen in the course of a game and should not be ejectable. It's just as asinine to eject someone for targeting is it would be for a face mask or horse collar penalty. <b>85% of the time, the hit is in no way intended to be dirty, </b>just some mistiming.
Click to expand...

Well, Poock's hit fits in the 15% range. Not impressive at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

How is Celestin supposed to anticipate the angle of the hit going full speed when the ball carrier dropped this head by two to three feet in the matter of a millisecond? He started his angle of attack at the Qb's midpoint before or as the QB starts to descend to the ground. It's a bang-bang play that should never result in an ejection.
 

Spoofin said:
Well, Poock's hit fits in the 15% range. Not impressive at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't consider that "dirty" at all. Do you think he was legitimately trying to injure the WR? I certainly don't and I don't consider an LB laying some wood on a WR when they are running right at each other to be dirty most of the time if it's between the whistles. Mean and nasty yes but not dirty, no different than an O-lineman pummeling a defender into the ground.
 

die hard gopher said:
I don't consider that "dirty" at all. Do you think he was legitimately trying to injure the WR? I certainly don't and I don't consider an LB laying some wood on a WR when they are running right at each other to be dirty most of the time.
Click to expand...

From my view point, which was very good at the game, the ball was clearly over thrown, both the WR and CP12 slowed as it sailed way over their heads. The WR was looking back at where the ball was going to land and CP made the conscious decision to lay out a defenseless receiver on a play that was dead. The ref agreed. I'll watch the replay sometime this week and see if my opinion changes, but seeing it live I would say YES, it was dirty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You can't determine intent. It's not even part of the rule. Poock's hit was 100% unnecessary and fit the rule for targeting. Celestin stays in game if he doesn't hit with top of helmet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

HoustonTXGopher said:
How is Celestin supposed to anticipate the angle of the hit going full speed when the ball carrier dropped this head by two to three feet in the matter of a millisecond? He started his angle of attack at the Qb's midpoint before or as the QB starts to descend to the ground. It's a bang-bang play that should never result in an ejection.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. It's like the guy that turns his back before a check in hockey. What are you supposed to do? And of course it's not a late hit when they hit Leidner when he slides.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
 

Regardless of the other elements involved in the play Celestin hit the QB helmet to helmet. That qualifies as an ejection per the rule.

The only one I would've questioned was the hit by Devers.

The hit on Leidner when he was sliding was not late and not helmet to helmet
 

Those targeting calls are so subjective....it's a really fine line. Penalty?....Okay, but auto ejection is stupid.

Maybe ejection on second penalty or on 'obvious intent to injure'..or something like that.

Dumb rule, get rid of it.

Three players ejected? Asinine.

Edit: And on that late hit call on Leidner(at the end of game)...What took so long for a flag to come out?
 

I think you need some type of warning - getting ejected on the spot is harsh -
 

station19 said:
Edit: And on that late hit call on Leidner(at the end of game)...What took so long for a flag to come out?
Click to expand...
A player shoved one of our players after the play.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

I think in the end they were all correct. You could debate Celestin's due to the QB sliding and his head changing position, but that was still a Personal Foul regardless.
 


station19 said:
Those targeting calls are so subjective....it's a really fine line. Penalty?....Okay, but auto ejection is stupid.

Maybe ejection on second penalty or on 'obvious intent to injure'..or something like that.

Dumb rule, get rid of it.

Three players ejected? Asinine.

Edit: And on that late hit call on Leidner(at the end of game)...What took so long for a flag to come out?
Click to expand...

Not dumb. If you want these hits taken out of the game, take the players out that do them.
 

SJUgopher said:
Not dumb. If you want these hits taken out of the game, take the players out that do them.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to eliminate all of these kinds of hits unless they change over to 2 hand touch.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom