Targeting Rule Change

Donate To GopherHole

Not sure how I feel about this. Seems to minimize dangerous hits, no?
 

pharmacygopher said:
Not sure how I feel about this. Seems to minimize dangerous hits, no?
Click to expand...
I wish they would have two options similar to how basketball has a flagrant 1 and flagrant 2. If it’s egregious, then it’s a penalty and ejection. If it’s not bad but still targeting, then just a penalty.
 

GophersInIowa said:
I wish they would have two options similar to how basketball has a flagrant 1 and flagrant 2. If it’s egregious, then it’s a penalty and ejection. If it’s not bad but still targeting, then just a penalty.
Click to expand...
Having seen some of the calls in the past couple of years, there are some clear instances where the player is making a football play and ends up hitting the offensive player in the head (defender going low and receiver stumbling and helmets hit.

Your suggestion to address that makes more sense than what they've proposed.
 

caliGopher said:
Having seen some of the calls in the past couple of years, there are some clear instances where the player is making a football play and ends up hitting the offensive player in the head (defender going low and receiver stumbling and helmets hit.

Your suggestion to address that makes more sense than what they've proposed.
Click to expand...
Agree with you and GII 100%. There are plenty of targeting calls where they pretend physics aren't a thing. Sometimes the offensive player moves after the defensive player has already started their movement, and they end up hitting the offensive player in the head completely unintentionally. How his is adjudicated the same as an obviously malicious hit is really dumb.

This is at least a (baby) step forward.
 


I feel like they should've focused on implementing training to better ensure it gets called consistently across conferences based on the rule in place.
 



I actually think this is a decent way to handle things. They have done a pretty good job of taking the intentional kill shots out of the game.

Gives players a little grace for an inadvertent targeting that just happens one time and if they do it again the punishment is escalated.
 



forever a gopher said:
Agree with you and GII 100%. There are plenty of targeting calls where they pretend physics aren't a thing. Sometimes the offensive player moves after the defensive player has already started their movement, and they end up hitting the offensive player in the head completely unintentionally. How his is adjudicated the same as an obviously malicious hit is really dumb.

This is at least a (baby) step forward.
Click to expand...
I dont think it should be a penalty at all if a defender is coming in low and leading with the shoulder and the ball carrier/receiver drops his head or stumbles head first into the hit. A penalty should exist to either deter deliberate (or at least careless) wrongful conduct or to compensate a team for a lost opportunity arising from such conduct. The strict liability aspect to targeting has always bothered me (i recognize the strict liability component to face masking, but i rarely see a facemask where i feel like the player wasnt at minimum careless with his hand). Im all for protecting player safety, but a defender needs to be allowed to make a play. If a defensive player is coming in to deliver an otherwise legal hit the way we want him to, he shouldn't find himself the subject of any penalty (much less a 15 yard penalty and ejection) just because of actions by the offensive player outside of his control.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I dont think it should be a penalty at all if a defender is coming in low and leading with the shoulder and the ball carrier/receiver drops his head or stumbles head first into the hit. A penalty should exist to either deter deliberate (or at least careless) wrongful conduct or to compensate a team for a lost opportunity arising from such conduct. The strict liability aspect to targeting has always bothered me (i recognize the strict liability component to face masking, but i rarely see a facemask where i feel like the player wasnt at minimum careless with his hand). Im all for protecting player safety, but a defender needs to be allowed to make a play. If a defensive player is coming in to deliver an otherwise legal hit the way we want him to, he shouldn't find himself the subject of any penalty (much less a 15 yard penalty and ejection) just because of actions by the offensive player outside of his control.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that always gets me too. Especially if like another defender is reaching for him, the incoming safety or whatever really has no solid idea where the offensive player's helmet will be in 1/2 second from now.
 

pharmacygopher said:
Not sure how I feel about this. Seems to minimize dangerous hits, no?
Click to expand...
I think I like it more than the current rules. Ideally, I’d like what GII suggested where refs determine if a specific targeting call warrants ejection. That said, I simply wouldn’t trust the refs to manage ejections fairly.

I like this version as it is specifically aimed at players who make a habit of targeting or leading with their head.
 




matt said:
I think I like it more than the current rules. Ideally, I’d like what GII suggested where refs determine if a specific targeting call warrants ejection. That said, I simply wouldn’t trust the refs to manage ejections fairly.

I like this version as it is specifically aimed at players who make a habit of targeting or leading with their head.
Click to expand...

Nobody, including big ten officials first and foremost, seems to understand the targeting rule as written. Maybe most rules. I propose:

1) Change the rule

2) AI analysis of plays for rule violations (only half-joking). See proposal #1 if you don’t like the outcome.

3) Crowd source targeting verdicts. “Back in the day” the viewing audience could text or call to vote on their favorite amateur performers in real time. Bottom of the heap sent packing. I trust football nation to identify targeting properly far more often than our hopelessly myopic, cataract-afflicted, home brew, betting-app aficionado officials. Is this targeting or incidental contact? Text yes or no to big ten enterprises.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Nobody, including big ten officials first and foremost, seems to understand the targeting rule as written. Maybe most rules. I propose:

1) Change the rule

2) AI analysis of plays for rule violations (only half-joking). See proposal #1 if you don’t like the outcome.

3) Crowd source targeting verdicts. “Back in the day” the viewing audience could text or call to vote on their favorite amateur performers in real time. Bottom of the heap sent packing. I trust football nation to identify targeting properly far more often than our hopelessly myopic, cataract-afflicted, home brew, betting-app aficionado officials. Is this targeting or incidental contact? Text yes or no to big ten enterprises.
Click to expand...
I’m onboard with 1 and 2. 3 would just lead to the same issue as ref bias - the popular, money making teams will get favorable calls.
 

matt said:
I’m onboard with 1 and 2. 3 would just lead to the same issue as ref bias - the popular, money making teams will get favorable calls.
Click to expand...

Meet the new boss, same as the…

And yeah, probably unworkable with tech cheats finding workarounds in our modern times. Maybe, hear me out, a panel of 13 people mostly or totally unfamiliar with American football (my vote would be kindergartners, to reduce bias and betting app use although you never know) recruited to an “officiating command center” in some windy treeless upper midwestern suburb convenient to an AMC theater and yogurt joint who would be presented with the bullet points of the targeting rule and tasked to review targeting calls for all big ten games. Did this person do this, and this, and this? Launch, contact to head or neck, defenseless, etc. Things insanely difficult for adults to recognize or rule out may be easier for young children, in some cases. Is the sky blue. Maybe not, depending. Less thinking about consequences, job security.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Meet the new boss, same as the…

And yeah, probably unworkable with tech cheats finding workarounds in our modern times. Maybe, hear me out, a panel of 13 people mostly or totally unfamiliar with American football (my vote would be kindergartners, to reduce bias and betting app use although you never know) recruited to an “officiating command center” in some windy upper treeless midwestern suburb convenient to an AMC theater and yogurt joint who would be presented with the bullet points of the targeting rule and tasked to review targeting calls for all big ten games. Did this person do this, and this, and this? Launch, contact to head or neck, defenseless, etc. Things insanely difficult for adults may be easier for young children, in some cases. Is the sky blue. Maybe not, depending. Less thinking about consequences, job security.
Click to expand...
I’m convinced.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Meet the new boss, same as the…

And yeah, probably unworkable with tech cheats finding workarounds in our modern times. Maybe, hear me out, a panel of 13 people mostly or totally unfamiliar with American football (my vote would be kindergartners, to reduce bias and betting app use although you never know) recruited to an “officiating command center” in some windy treeless upper midwestern suburb convenient to an AMC theater and yogurt joint who would be presented with the bullet points of the targeting rule and tasked to review targeting calls for all big ten games. Did this person do this, and this, and this? Launch, contact to head or neck, defenseless, etc. Things insanely difficult for adults to recognize or rule out may be easier for young children, in some cases. Is the sky blue. Maybe not, depending. Less thinking about consequences, job security.
Click to expand...
Could probably apply this to "what is a catch" in the NFL as well? It feels like a bunch of kids just going from their gut instinct would bring us closer to reality.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Nobody, including big ten officials first and foremost, seems to understand the targeting rule as written. Maybe most rules. I propose:

1) Change the rule

2) AI analysis of plays for rule violations (only half-joking). See proposal #1 if you don’t like the outcome.

3) Crowd source targeting verdicts. “Back in the day” the viewing audience could text or call to vote on their favorite amateur performers in real time. Bottom of the heap sent packing. I trust football nation to identify targeting properly far more often than our hopelessly myopic, cataract-afflicted, home brew, betting-app aficionado officials. Is this targeting or incidental contact? Text yes or no to big ten enterprises.
Click to expand...
Hosted by Ryan Seacrest.
 

It feels like Refs and Review Teams are reluctant to call obvious targeting “Targeting”, because they are afraid of and not supported in the review process, and they are afraid to disqualify players. I also think the profile of the team and the level of the game (I.e. CFP games) influence calls.

So hopefully this change takes some pressure off so the right call is the priority, not appeasement.
 

Also, targeting is targeting. The suggestion that obvious targeting shouldn’t be called because a defender is making a “football play” . . . . Ridiculous. Almost nobody is intending to target, it just happens, and it just needs to be called.
 

BillyMyr said:
Also, targeting is targeting. The suggestion that obvious targeting shouldn’t be called because a defender is making a “football play” . . . . Ridiculous. Almost nobody is intending to target, it just happens, and it just needs to be called.
Click to expand...

Oh no, no, no no. A helmet “sliding up” inferiorly superiorly through the lower jaw area or ear hole of a defenseless quarterback or receiver is not. It’s in the rule. I guess.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Oh no, no, no no. A helmet “sliding up” inferiorly superiorly through the lower jaw area or ear hole of a defenseless quarterback or receiver is not. It’s in the rule. I guess.
Click to expand...
the problem with targeting is that it’s really a rule that if there isn’t clear and obvious they should text me the video and I’ll tell them whether or not it was.


The purpose of the rule is to take away dangerous cheap shots.
And we get into the weeds on plays that simply aren’t cheap shots.

Meanwhile other cheap shots aren’t penalties.


Meanwhile the replays take forever.


Cheapshot with either players head = ejection
Non cheap shot with the head = no ejection but 15 yard penalty

Play on, no replays
 

matt said:
I like this version as it is specifically aimed at players who make a habit of targeting or leading with their head.
Click to expand...
I don't think that was part of the change - that was in there before too.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
I don't think that was part of the change - that was in there before too.
Click to expand...
I mean the part where the disqualification time increases with subsequent targeting calls throughout the season. I think players (and their coaches) with two targeting calls will have the punishment on their mind. I think that it will deter them from leading with their helmet, particularly because that will be late in the season when big games are on the line.
 

matt said:
I mean the part where the disqualification time increases with subsequent targeting calls throughout the season.
Click to expand...
So do I. That's the part that I claim was already in there, from the websites I went to. They are just repeating that info in the tweet.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom