Targeting

Donate To GopherHole
Didn't one of the Gophs' best linebackers get tossed for targeting the first play of the 2018 Axe game? I'm too lazy to look up who it was.
 


FormerFatOL said:
Didn't one of the Gophs' best linebackers get tossed for targeting the first play of the 2018 Axe game? I'm too lazy to look up who it was.
Click to expand...
Not first play but cashman was at some point
 


TNGophfan said:
No. The whole thing is about CTE and brain injuries. People don't get dementia from having their knee rolled up on.
Click to expand...
No, but people do have chronic knee pain and knee replacements and should replacements in their 40s and 50s from football injuries
 


Some guy said:
No, but people do have chronic knee pain and knee replacements and should replacements in their 40s and 50s from football injuries
Click to expand...
True. Many of my friends are having knees and hips replaced these days (we're old) from playing sports but any one if them would happily take that vs not knowing their kids names. To be clear, I think some targeting calls are missed and others enforced when questionable but I'm 100% behind the idea of removing head hunting from the game.
 

TNGophfan said:
True. Many of my friends are having knees and hips replaced these days (we're old) from playing sports but any one if them would happily take that vs not knowing their kids names. To be clear, I think some targeting calls are missed and others enforced when questionable but I'm 100% behind the idea of removing head hunting from the game.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you have to eject guys every time to do it.
Neither does the nfl nor does the NFHS
 

Some guy said:
I don’t think you have to eject guys every time to do it.
Neither does the nfl nor does the NFHS
Click to expand...
Actually, they only do if the act meets the rule upon review. Otherwise they change it to just a personal foul and no ejection.
We will just agree to disagree. I'm ok with the ejection part.
 

there are two different arguments going on here.

1. the way the rule is written

2. the way the rule is enforced.

I'm all for tweaking the wording of the rule to make it as clear as possible. But the games are still going to be officiated by human beings. And in College FB, you have crews from different conferences who may have different viewpoints on how the rule should be enforced.

So I don't think you're ever going to be able to settle this to everyone's satisfaction.
 



When you look at the NFL in regards to flattening the quarterback that results in a 15-yard penalty the first year it was implemented. It has gone down considerably with coaching and other steps to improve the situation.

Hopefully targeting will go down as well. In the beginning, I like the idea of a yellow/red card situation for a while. There is that gray area that really punishes players.
 

stocker08 said:
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.
Click to expand...
CAB lowered his head just as much if not more than Wilder.
I agree that Wilder came in hard to try and dislodge the ball since CAB was bobbling it.
Don't see anything in the play where he was head hunting.
Still not sure how he plays that any differently and avoids the helmet contact.
Also, still PO'd about non-call on OSU against MBS. That was head hunting and helmet to helmet contact.
This play between Wilder and CAB was shoulder to helmet where the Offensive player dropped his head.
 

GFBfan said:
CAB lowered his head just as much if not more than Wilder.
I agree that Wilder came in hard to try and dislodge the ball since CAB was bobbling it.
Don't see anything in the play where he was head hunting.
Still not sure how he plays that any differently and avoids the helmet contact.
Click to expand...

Never said that he was trying to head hunt. The rule is clear. Launching and/or leading with the crown are specific. Player keeps his head up on that tackle....he doesn't get tossed. I understand that these things happen fast....but I have little doubt that coaches preach this during practice. It's up to the player to know that leading with the crown is a no-no.
 

Two points here: There should be zero tolerance for targeting. Hit a player in the head or neck area with the crown of your helmet and that's targeting. We either have that or a bunch of ambulances lined up outside the stadium because some coach somewhere will think a 15-yard penalty is a small price to pay for knocking a star receiver or RB or QB out of the game. If a defender is tossed, so be it. I vote for player safety.
Secondly, I'm tired of announcers consistently advocating for rule changes to soften the impact of the potential penalty, while an official is reviewing the play before making the ruling. The announcers are only interested in calling competitive games, so there is an inherent bias on their part to keep players in games. It is one thing to voice an opinion on a play. But I frequently hear an ejection will impact the competitive outcome of the game. That needs to be reined in. If you doubt me, listen to Joel klatt's non targeting call on the buckeyes for the hit on gopher receiver late in the opener
 



I thought there were other hits initially called as targeting for hits on Gopher players but overruled earlier this season but were overturned.
 

stocker08 said:
Never said that he was trying to head hunt. The rule is clear. Launching and/or leading with the crown are specific. Player keeps his head up on that tackle....he doesn't get tossed. I understand that these things happen fast....but I have little doubt that coaches preach this during practice. It's up to the player to know that leading with the crown is a no-no.
Click to expand...
He didn't launch nor lead with his head, in fact the front of CAB's helmet hit the side of Wilders helmet and his shoulder pad.
 

GFBfan said:
He didn't launch nor lead with his head, in fact the front of CAB's helmet hit the side of Wilders helmet and his shoulder pad.
Click to expand...

He lead with the crown of his helmet.
 

stocker08 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on running backs lowering their head and trying to run over a defender (with helmet to helmet contact)? I’ve never seen that called for targeting.
 

ElectricGopher said:
What are your thoughts on running backs lowering their head and trying to run over a defender (with helmet to helmet contact)? I’ve never seen that called for targeting.
Click to expand...

I get your point....but it's only 'okay' at best. In most circumstances....the ball carrier is not going to be the aggressor. And typically....the defender is ready for the hit. Offensive players a lot of the time have no chance to ready themselves for the hit. The targeting yesterday was a good example. CAB was hit almost immediately.

Look....I share many of the same concerns as everyone else. Targeting is inconsistent. Refs getting to make judgements on intent would help.....but as of right now.....they go by the way the rule is written.
 


Some guy said:
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
Click to expand...
I’ve torn my ACL. It was bothersome and frustrating. I am not paralyzed but think that would be much more life altering. really a weird comparison to draw. 1000s of athletes at different levels return to compete post-ACL. How many after being paralyzed?
 

Some guy said:
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
Click to expand...
Not in the way you're suggesting.

Lots of torn knee ligaments and few instances of paralysis. But what percentage of knee injuries are a result of non-routine tackles or rolling up a QB's leg? Probably far, far less than the percentage of head/neck injuries that are due to helmet to helmet contact.

Torn ligaments don't really end careers anymore. Paralysis and repeated concussions do though. To act like these injuries are equivalent and should be equally prevented strikes me as arguing for the sake of arguing.
 


I think the part people are missing is that this goes to review and the ejection is confirmed. It doesn't stand. It is either confirmed or overturned.

Overall that hit was the textbook (as it is written) definition of targeting. There really isn't a debate. Crown of helmet to runner's helmet should get you ejected every time. Personally, I dislike the way the rule is currently written and enforced. The discretion, to me, is similar to what others have mentioned with a yellow card/red card idea, but you can get there with just changing how it's called.

Call it as a personal foul/unnecessary roughness with targeting (that's what they called). Then you review it to confirm targeting and if it's not textbook, guy stays in the game but still a 15 yard penalty. Leading with the head needs to be eliminated from the game. It's a horrible look for football and the people writing the rules know that. Getting kicked out of games does nothing to NFL players, but you hit them in the pocketbook and guys change. That's why the rule isn't ejection in the NFL but rather incremental increases in fines.
 

Agree that this is applied pretty unevenly. I’m still livid that it wasn’t called on Ransom’s hit that KO’d MBS in the OSU game. How could there not have been a hit to the head when he was knocked unconscious? But I’ve seen it called many times when the ball carrier lowers his head just before getting hit. My question is why do we never see it called on a big RB who lowers his head and blows over a little DB by hitting him square in the face?
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
I’ve torn my ACL. It was bothersome and frustrating. I am not paralyzed but think that would be much more life altering. really a weird comparison to draw. 1000s of athletes at different levels return to compete post-ACL. How many after being paralyzed?
Click to expand...


Not an odd comparison at all

they were saying eject guys for doing illegal things that could cause injury. So I’m wondering why we would do that for concussions when we don’t do it for other injuries.

upnorthkid said:
I think the part people are missing is that this goes to review and the ejection is confirmed. It doesn't stand. It is either confirmed or overturned.

Overall that hit was the textbook (as it is written) definition of targeting. There really isn't a debate. Crown of helmet to runner's helmet should get you ejected every time. Personally, I dislike the way the rule is currently written and enforced. The discretion, to me, is similar to what others have mentioned with a yellow card/red card idea, but you can get there with just changing how it's called.

Call it as a personal foul/unnecessary roughness with targeting (that's what they called). Then you review it to confirm targeting and if it's not textbook, guy stays in the game but still a 15 yard penalty. Leading with the head needs to be eliminated from the game. It's a horrible look for football and the people writing the rules know that. Getting kicked out of games does nothing to NFL players, but you hit them in the pocketbook and guys change. That's why the rule isn't ejection in the NFL but rather incremental increases in fines.
Click to expand...
you think kicking out starters wouldn’t do anything in nfl games?

you know they have 53 man rosters right?
 

GFBfan said:
He didn't launch nor lead with his head, in fact the front of CAB's helmet hit the side of Wilders helmet and his shoulder pad.
Click to expand...
If CrAB was still deemed defenseless, it doesn't need to be helmet to helmet.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
If CrAB was still deemed defenseless, it doesn't need to be helmet to helmet.
Click to expand...
And it is less about tacklers head than CAB’s

you can get targeting for a forearm to to the helmet
 

Some guy said:
Not an odd comparison at all

they were saying eject guys for doing illegal things that could cause injury. So I’m wondering why we would do that for concussions when we don’t do it for other injuries.


you think kicking out starters wouldn’t do anything in nfl games?

you know they have 53 man rosters right?
Click to expand...
personally, nope. is it going to piss off the coaches, sure.
 

goldenboy said:
Agree that this is applied pretty unevenly. I’m still livid that it wasn’t called on Ransom’s hit that KO’d MBS in the OSU game. How could there not have been a hit to the head when he was knocked unconscious? But I’ve seen it called many times when the ball carrier lowers his head just before getting hit. My question is why do we never see it called on a big RB who lowers his head and blows over a little DB by hitting him square in the face?
Click to expand...
This is part of what makes this rule so difficult to interpret and enforce. Defensive player coming full speed at an offensive player at full speed. Offensive player either by instinct or on purpose lowers his helmet or even is sometimes falling down... Defensive player who would have hit the offensive player a split second earlier shoulder-to-chest is now hitting shoulder-to-helmet or helmet-to-helmet.

Players are not going to be fully upright during these plays... so how does one handle this. It is super rare for the offensive player to get called for initiating helmet to helmet contact.

I am also super pissed about the hit on MBS in the OSU game...absolutely egregious and obvious...missing it on the field is one thing, but the fact that it got reviewed and they couldn't get it right is a fireable offense in my mind.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom