It didn’t “have” to be drawn as it isn’t drawn at the high school level or the pro level.
Targeting
- Thread starter Some guy
- Start date
MGGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 5,610
- Reaction score
- 2,861
- Points
- 113
Agree with so much posted here.
- That hit last night was by-the-rulebook targeting and the correct call was made. IMO the defender was not being malicious though, and I don't think it warranted an ejection. Refs hands are tied.
- The ejection needs to be separated from the penalty. Like last night, guy makes a mistake and hits a WR in the head, give him a penalty, but don't toss him...just like a DL who accidentally swats a QB in the facemask a la Mafe last night.
- I like the "red card/yellow card" comment above. Refs in other sports like soccer and basketball get the leeway to judge intent with flagrant fouls and the like. It's hard and mistakes will still be made, but I'd like to see the auto-ejection go.
- SO FRUSTRATING how inconsistently it's called. The OSU hit on MBS was FAR more dangerous and malicious than the hit last night, and yet it wasn't called. I'm still upset about that. It's those exact hits that the penalty was created to get rid of, and yet we routinely see them not called while lesser hits are called. It's maddening.
Last edited:
Lazy take. It most certainly a rule in high school. There are fines in the NFL.
It’s drawn without an ejection being automatic was what I meant. Which is 100% fact whether you like it or not
stocker08
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 36,708
- Reaction score
- 20,996
- Points
- 113
Doesn't matter if he was "trying" or not. It was a dangerous play and the very definition of targeting. You don't lowering your head and lead with the crown. Could have made that tackle very easily without doing so.
So you think roughing the passer rolling up on a QB’s knee should be an ejection too? Or no?
stocker08
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 36,708
- Reaction score
- 20,996
- Points
- 113
I don't like seeing it. But is there a rule somewhere about it?
cncmin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,623
- Reaction score
- 6,892
- Points
- 113
Ask yourself if he would have tried to hit CAB that hard if he wasn’t wearing loads of padding, where he can launch himself at reckless abandon. He chose to launch at CAB at full speed and hit him as hard as he possibly could instead of just tackle him. Whether or not he aimed for the head, it’s his own fault for launching at a defenseless young man. Next time, he should just tackle instead of try to take out the opposing player. Leave that garbage for the paid gladiators style of the NFL. I have no sympathy for him.
That’s literally what this thread is about.
If you think targeting should have a rule to eject, why don’t you think that equally as dangerous of a play should have a rule the guy is ejected? Do you think there should be a rule that a high-low block is an ejection? That play is just as dangerous
Targeting at the high school level is also quite a bit more broadly defined. There’s more nuance at the high school level because of that and, after review, players can be suspended - likely for the same actions that the NCAA automatically suspends players.
I don’t have sympathy for him either.
I don’t think he should’ve stayed in the game based on the current rule.
High school Players can’t be suspended after the fact upon review. Not sure what you’re talking about. There is no review process at least in the state of Minnesota
Yes the high school rule has more nuance. And I’m saying the college rule should add the same nuance
stocker08
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 36,708
- Reaction score
- 20,996
- Points
- 113
I believe that if a defensive player rolls up on a QB in an egregious fashion....the refs could make a call. I'm fine with giving referees a little more leeway to make judgements based on individual plays....but the problem is that it opens things up a little too much to interpretation.
The rule is clear. Two big tells. Don't launch. Don't lead with the crown. If a player does either....I have no sympathy.
What I meant by review is that officials make the determination whether it’s egregious (and suspended) or not (and not suspended). “Review” was a poor word choice.
I’m fine if the NCAA adds that distinction in, but still think the hit last night was egregious even though I’ve seen hits even more egregious.
And at the high school level it doesn’t happen after the fact. It happens on the field
"Rolling up" on a QB's knee ISN'T as dangerous as leading with the crown of a helmet.
The targeting rule is intended to lower the instance of head and spine injuries.
Nobody ever suffered paralysis from a hit to the knee.
How many players have torn ACLs in the last 10 years of college football, how many have become paralyzed from neck injuries.
though the seriousness of injury is different, knee injuries are much more of a risk to players than neck injuries
Ok, idiot.
Vandy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 3,526
- Reaction score
- 1,714
- Points
- 113
From what I saw, the correct call was definitely made here. The problem is consistency. We all know that we have seen many worse hits called and then overruled at review.
I don't know how you correct the consistency issue.
I don't know how you correct the consistency issue.
Some Day...Maybe
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,947
- Reaction score
- 1,451
- Points
- 113
The way it's called is awful. No consistency whatsoever. Like you say, has to be some discretion when it's bang bang and the receiver is ducking down as well. 2 options would be good. But they still F up so much! I mean the hit against MBS in the OSU game couldn't have been a more obvious/textbook targeting.
You fine refs that make egregiously bad calls. Like the OSU hit on Leidner, those refs should never work another game ever again.
Yeah 2 options is what they do at all levels of football other than college.
Nice, mature, response
There is already an official shortage and you think getting rid of referees is going to improve officiating?
Yes. If someone is excruciatingly bad at their job they should be fired. It’s not a novel concept.
Ok
let’s fire every ref who makes a bad call. I’m sure the backup officials will be better
I said no such thing and you’re being purposely obtuse. Good on you
You literally said if they make a really bad call, fire them or fine themI said no such thing and you’re being purposely obtuse. Good on you
Or did you not mean fire? Just like a permanent suspension?
Firing refs for one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen in my lifetime somehow equates to “let’s fire every ref who makes a bad call”? Nice stretch there
Lol okFiring refs for one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen in my lifetime somehow equates to “let’s fire every ref who makes a bad call”? Nice stretch there