Targeting

[gopher7]

This need to be brought up again and again until the NCAA changes something. Go back and look at what our guy was ejected for, and look at what Alabama's kickoff team is doing. It's beyond a joke at this point. I have never wanted to stop watching college football more than I do right now.

 

[MNfootballfan]

This need to be brought up again and again until the NCAA changes something. Go back and look at what our guy was ejected for, and look at what Alabama's kickoff team is doing. It's beyond a joke at this point. I have never wanted to stop watching college football more than I do right now.

+1000

 

[Pompous Elitist]

This need to be brought up again and again until the NCAA changes something. Go back and look at what our guy was ejected for, and look at what Alabama's kickoff team is doing. It's beyond a joke at this point. I have never wanted to stop watching college football more than I do right now.

Need video

 

[gopher7]

Need video

Here is video of the first one. DID NOT EVEN GET REVIEWED.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Pompous Elitist]

You need to read the in game thread to understand that any incidental helmet contact is targeting /s. spearing someone in the head with your helmet, not targeting. #refsalwaysright

 

[gopher7]

Here is a closer look. This was deemed by the replay official to be "not the crown of the helmet".

 

[Nax5]

And then an A&M player got ejected for a similar hit...

Ejecting rules are just a joke.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

And then an A&M player got ejected for a similar hit...

Officiating crews are just a joke.

Fixed it. They need to get their **** under control. Hurting the game every week.

 

[gopher7]

Here is the rule

Article 5 A. The replay official shall review all target fouls, rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. The Review includes all aspect of the targeting foult o ascertain whether there is at least one indicator of targeting action (not 1 to rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4), and:
1. Whether the crown of the helmet is used to make forcible contact (rule 9-1-3); or
2. Whether there is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (rules 9-1-4 and 2-27-14)

B. The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials.

 

[gopher7]

Here is the rule

Article 5 A. The replay official shall review all target fouls, rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. The Review includes all aspect of the targeting foult o ascertain whether there is at least one indicator of targeting action (not 1 to rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4), and:
1. Whether the crown of the helmet is used to make forcible contact (rule 9-1-3); or
2. Whether there is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (rules 9-1-4 and 2-27-14)

B. The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials.

The word from the broadcast booth was that the replay booth did not consider him defenseless. So either a) They don't know the rule above, or 2) they did not think rule B was met. I do not know how you can look at that play and think that, especially when you see some of the other things people get thrown out for. The first Alabama kickoff video from above is basically the textbook example of rule A1. (They never showed a replay of the second non-call unless I missed it)

 

[GophersInIowa]

This might be the worst one I've seen yet.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[everybody knows my name]

From where I sat, in the corner of the SW bed zone, the targeting call on Lynn looked completely bogus. What is the consensus among Gopher fans, especially those who watched on TV?

 

[short ornery norwegian]

If they really want to clarify things - how about this - any contact above the shoulders is an ejection. That seems harsh, but players would be forced to change their tackling habits, or get booted out of a lot of games.

Or - (sarcasm) - have the players go back to the old leather helmets with no facemask. after a few guys lose all their teeth, they'll stop going in head-first for every tackle. This is learned behavior. It has evolved from the ESPN big hits get you on the highlights mentality.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

From where I sat, in the corner of the SW bed zone, the targeting call on Lynn looked completely bogus. What is the consensus among Gopher fans, especially those who watched on TV?

I thought it was clear he lead with his shoulder, and the side of Lynn's helmet slapped the face mask on the receiver as incidental contact. He didn't launch and even looked to be trying to hold up, turning his body to avoid head to head. Others disagreed.

 

[gopher7]

From where I sat, in the corner of the SW bed zone, the targeting call on Lynn looked completely bogus. What is the consensus among Gopher fans, especially those who watched on TV?

I don't know. According to the rule it may have been targeting, but if it was, then the rule needs to change. There was helmet to helmet contact, but he led with his shoulder, and had about a half-second to try and peel off after the receiver missed the pass. There was no malice involved.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

This might be the worst one I've seen yet.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Shoulder to helmet. More defensible than the call on Lynn.

How can the hits on the TAMU player, Leidner not get called as spearing/unsportsmlike but these result in ejections. Total madness.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Like I've said before, I have no problem with throwing the flag in these situations. It's the automatic ejection that is frustrating. The real bad ones, yeah but some of these are so close it is hard to tell.

 

[gopher7]

I thought it was clear he lead with his shoulder, and the side of Lynn's helmet slapped the face mask on the receiver as incidental contact. He didn't launch and even looked to be trying to hold up, turning his body to avoid head to head. Others disagreed.

Well put, these were exactly my thoughts as well. Also if you watch it in fast speed, it was such a bang-bang moment, I don't know what else you can expect the player to do other then just say "don't try to tackle him"

 

[GophersInIowa]

Shoulder to helmet. More defensible than the call on Lynn.

How can the hits on the TAMU player, Leidner not get called as spearing/unsportsmlike but these result in ejections. Total madness.

The player is falling down head first. How is the defender supposed to hit him without hitting him in the head? If this is targeting and that player is falling forward on 4th down right at the first down market, the defender has no way of stopping him without getting a penalty and ejection.

 

[gopher7]

Here is video of Lynn's.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The player is falling down head first. How is the defender supposed to hit him without hitting him in the head? If this is targeting and that player is falling forward on 4th down right at the first down market, the defender has no way of stopping him without getting a penalty and ejection.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. These incidental contacts should be reviewed and overturned but that's not happening. Then you get all these open field spearings that aren't called or considered legal. I dunno.

Edit to earlier post: on slo-mo review of the Lynn hit maybe it was closer than I thought. I still think intent has to be worked into the rule.

 

[RodentRampage]

Maybe officials should be ejected.

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

 

[50PoundHead]

From where I sat, in the corner of the SW bed zone, the targeting call on Lynn looked completely bogus. What is the consensus among Gopher fans, especially those who watched on TV?

I thought it was an unnecessary hit and had no strong opinion on whether or not it was targeting. I agree that the rule is very loose right now, but my beef with Lynn is that the ball was past the player and Lynn wasn't making a play on the receiver until the ball was well past him. I would have no problem had it just been called unnecessary roughness.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Watching game for first time tonight. It was 100% a target and late. All he had to do was play the ball. 99% of these calls are avoidable by playing the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Word]

Watching game for first time tonight. It was 100% a target and late. All he had to do was play the ball. 99% of these calls are avoidable by playing the ball.

Would you at least agree that the NCAA needs to change the rule so that hits like the Alabama kick coverage hit area also illegal and ejections? That's a FAR more dangerous play than what Lynn did. Not even close.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Would you at least agree that the NCAA needs to change the rule so that hits like the Alabama kick coverage hit area also illegal and ejections? That's a FAR more dangerous play than what Lynn did. Not even close.

I do agree that any player putting the crown of helmet into the grill of any player with that force should be illegal.

However a concussion is a concussion and I'm not sure there is evidence of what type of hit is worse.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Schnauzer]

The targeting rule should not have as big of a gray area as it does. I like the rule in theory but in practice it has been a complete mess. Confirm the hit is on a defenseless player. Then confirm if the player taking the hit had his head moving vertically when he was hit (how reasonable is it that the player making the hit was actually "targeting" the head). Finally, consider if the player was leading with the helmet or the shoulder.

The West Virginia example above is evidence there is way too much gray area. That should never have been ruled targeting. It gets even more frustrating to consider the Ohio State hit on Leidner last year. These calls are all over the board and that is evidence the rule interpretation is failing despite the fact it includes the use of video. Refs make mistakes. They always have. But when things are still hosed and inconsistent after the video review layer is applied, it brings the game's integrity into question.

Currently, some ejections seem to be made if the helmets touch at all. Sometimes helmets smack but after review an ejection isn't made. Sometimes there is no helmet contact but an ejection is made.

 

[tjgopher]

Part of the problem with Jack Lynn's hit was that it was high. The rule is in place to force defenders to hit a defenseless player in a "striking zone" under the head and shoulders. Lynn could have avoided everything if he just hit the guy where he was supposed to hit him (under the shoulders). I get the idea that he didn't intend to target the head and he led with the shoulder, but even a shoulder to a helmet hit on a defenseless player can be legally considered targeting (by rule). So, I can't blame the ref for throwing the flag and the replay official for upholding the call. Our players have to be more disciplined. Bend at the hips and hit the guy in the chest or waist and there is no problem at all (most times).

 

[Mick Turition]

Lynn hit him high and late so out he goes. Refs blew the Alabama call completely (Saban is always gonna get calls his way).

 

[everybody knows my name]

Lynn hit him high and late so out he goes. Refs blew the Alabama call completely (Saban is always gonna get calls his way).

But Lynn was low, stayed on his feet, and led with the shoulder. The receiver just got lower.