Targeting

[MNSpaniel]

I come from this as a person who played DB in high school and college. It is not as easy as you describe it. If he plays the ball as you describe (in this situation) he is more likely to get more targeting calls than not.

It's not just like those QB slides, it's a completely different play. If they are playing the ball they most likely don't get in a position to make an illegal play. Even had the player caught the ball or Duke jarred the ball free, it's still targeting.

There was no intent? Come one now.

 

[AO54]

Simple fix. Play the F-ing ball. He launched, and made forcible contact at the shoulder and above of a defenseless player. Textbook target.

I really don't see how anyone who watched the replays could definitively say he made contact above the shoulders. This was the best look we had at it.

 

[MNVCGUY]

I come from this as a person who played DB in high school and college. It is not as easy as you describe it. If he plays the ball as you describe (in this situation) he is more likely to get more targeting calls than not.

The problem is 100% that he launched himself at the receiver. I am all for giving players the benefit of the doubt in terms of intent but when a guy gets called for targeting 3 times you have to take a hard look at the player and how they play the game. Surprised more people didn't see the play earlier in the game where Duke leads with his forearm to the head of a player on the ground (think it was #17). Hopefully the coaches can find a way to get him to that line where he is playing aggressive without playing dirty.

 

[MaxyJR1]

I really don't see how anyone who watched the replays could definitively say he made contact above the shoulders. This was the best look we had at it.

The Ref said "confirmed" and then came back on mic and said "Correction, stands." Meaning there was not enough evidence to overturn.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I really don't see how anyone who watched the replays could definitively say he made contact above the shoulders. This was the best look we had at it.

I'll go with the call on the field then.... contact.

 

[50PoundHead]

I will agree that he launched himself but I guess there lies the problem. The player still can't control the angle of fall the opponent takes after other players hit him. I think Duke hits him high stomach ... maybe chest if the angle of fall isn't changed by other players. This was not blatant targeting in my opinion. I don't recall the other hit mentioned . This did not seem like a hit that a player should get kicked out of a game for.

Even if Duke hits him in the solar plexus, it was unnecessary roughness. He had two steps to pull up and didn't.

PS--It doesn't have to be above the shoulders to be targeting if the player is defenseless.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Even if Duke hits him in the solar plexus, it was unnecessary roughness. He had two steps to pull up and didn't.

PS--It doesn't have to be above the shoulders to be targeting if the player is defenseless.

Launched himself too...

 

[bottlebass]

The rule needs to be examined in the off season and something needs to be done. I've been very vocal against some of the calls on the gophers this year, but then this one when I watched it in real time and in the replays I agreed it was CLEARLY targeting. Wasn't expecting so many posters here to be arguing against it.

 

[AO54]

Even if Duke hits him in the solar plexus, it was unnecessary roughness. He had two steps to pull up and didn't.

PS--It doesn't have to be above the shoulders to be targeting if the player is defenseless.

What exactly are you "targeting" if you don't hit them in the head or neck?

 

[50PoundHead]

What exactly are you "targeting" if you don't hit them in the head or neck?

When they were discussing the rule last night, the officiating expert made it clear that it's above the shoulders if the player is not defenseless, but it can be below the shoulders when the player is defenseless. In essence, you are targeting a defenseless player unnecessarily.

 

[bottlebass]

What exactly are you "targeting" if you don't hit them in the head or neck?

The defenseless player as the rule states.

 

[MNVCGUY]

The rule needs to be examined in the off season and something needs to be done. I've been very vocal against some of the calls on the gophers this year, but then this one when I watched it in real time and in the replays I agreed it was CLEARLY targeting. Wasn't expecting so many posters here to be arguing against it.

I am actually really surprised by the amount of people arguing it as well although the majority seem to see it as targeting.

I have no doubt that this rule will be a big point of discussion in the off season with the various rules committees. The spirit of the rule is in the right place but there needs to be some adjusting to the enforcement and also the auto ejection aspect.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

The rule needs to be examined in the off season and something needs to be done. I've been very vocal against some of the calls on the gophers this year, but then this one when I watched it in real time and in the replays I agreed it was CLEARLY targeting. Wasn't expecting so many posters here to be arguing against it.

Yeah this one... it would be targeting under any rule that was about targeting...

 

[50PoundHead]

I am actually really surprised by the amount of people arguing it as well although the majority seem to see it as targeting.

I have no doubt that this rule will be a big point of discussion in the off season with the various rules committees. The spirit of the rule is in the right place but there needs to be some adjusting to the enforcement and also the auto ejection aspect.

We can argue targeting until the Rapture, but last night was an instance of unnecessary roughness at the very least and should have been flagged. The automatic ejection angle should be part of the debate, but there's no question that a penalty should have been called on that play. Call it what you want, but it was clearly a penalty.

 

[MaxyJR1]

I'm not sure it will be examined to much as we seem to be the only team to not get it. We were called for more than double the targeting calls of any other team.

 

[AO54]

When they were discussing the rule last night, the officiating expert made it clear that it's above the shoulders if the player is not defenseless, but it can be below the shoulders when the player is defenseless. In essence, you are targeting a defenseless player unnecessarily.

I doubt they throw the flag if he clearly hits him in the torso, even if he was "defenseless". I also think they reverse the ejection if there were better replays that showed he didn't contact above the shoulders.

 

[Iceland12]

The Ref said "confirmed" and then came back on mic and said "Correction, stands." Meaning there was not enough evidence to overturn.

Good catch, We had 15 people watching the game. 3-4 of us screamed "No!" when Duke hit the guy. A lot of "dammit" and "other words too. Just seemed like a cheap shot and an obvious targeting. It was, at least according to the rules discussed. The replays though didn't make it look as bad as it did in regular speed.

Agree with a lot of people on here. The Gophers need to address this in training camp and the NCAA needs to adjust the rule too.

Now back to thinking about that damn fine victory!

 

[MGGopher]

totally agree - rules have been shifted to give the benefit to the offense. this started from the top with the NFL under the guise of player safety but its clear the changes to QB hits and WRs were done for a specific reason, those guys are the stars of the league and sell the most jerseys/tickets so the league will protect them as much as possible

Yup. But the interesting thing about it is that there's no way Duke's hit last night would've been flagged in the NFL. I've seen WAY more malicious hits not draw a penalty in the league. The NFL wants it both ways: huge hits that fill highlight reels AND player safet -- or at least the guise of it.

In CFB, Duke's hit last night was clearly a penalty. He launched himself and flared out his forearm with no clear idea of where he'd hit. I hate the rule and think it needs to be changed (remove the automatic ejection, but leave the option for the ref to eject a player who clearly intends to injure), but last night's call was correct if you go by the book.

 

[Spoofin]

Let's not deny that DM8 has to clean up how he plays. It isn't just the targeting. I have been saying all year he is about "the hit" and not "the tackle". He missed a RB in the backfield during the game for the same reason - was 3rd down, gave them a first down. I like Duke and think he can be a great player, but he needs to adjust his style. The call last night was a no-Brainer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MNVCGUY]

I'm not sure it will be examined to much as we seem to be the only team to not get it. We were called for more than double the targeting calls of any other team.

Good point, assuming this coaching staff stays in tact I would think at the very least it will be a major focus for the defense during spring practice. That said, I don't remember the specifics of all the calls (and too lazy to look it up) but my recollection is that 3 three on Duke were pretty cut and dried and some of the others like the one on Celistin or the one on Rallis were more boarderline so really the issue may be confined to just a few key offenders (cough....McGhee....cough).

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Good point, assuming this coaching staff stays in tact I would think at the very least it will be a major focus for the defense during spring practice. That said, I don't remember the specifics of all the calls (and too lazy to look it up) but my recollection is that 3 three on Duke were pretty cut and dried and some of the others like the one on Celistin or the one on Rallis were more boarderline so really the issue may be confined to just a few key offenders (cough....McGhee....cough).

Agreed.

There were some arguable calls but we had plenty of straight up legit targeting calls. Time for the coaches to fix this stuff.... and Duke to figure it out already.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I'm not sure it will be examined to much as we seem to be the only team to not get it. We were called for more than double the targeting calls of any other team.

What needs to be taken a look at is the lack of consistency. There's been worse hits not called and not even reviewed.

 

[MaxyJR1]

What needs to be taken a look at is the lack of consistency. There's been worse hits not called and not even reviewed.

Consistency is lacking a bit due to a philosophy in calling it. When in doubt it is a foul and targeting. That opens it up a bit. Also know that they are trying to break a 30 year culture of decapitating plays.

 

[50PoundHead]

I doubt they throw the flag if he clearly hits him in the torso, even if he was "defenseless". I also think they reverse the ejection if there were better replays that showed he didn't contact above the shoulders.

If the refs don't throw a flag on that, why have refs?

 

[50PoundHead]

Let's not deny that DM8 has to clean up how he plays. It isn't just the targeting. I have been saying all year he is about "the hit" and not "the tackle". He missed a RB in the backfield during the game for the same reason - was 3rd down, gave them a first down. I like Duke and think he can be a great player, but he needs to adjust his style. The call last night was a no-Brainer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Duke has been possessed by the ghost of Jack Tatum. We need an exorcist on the staff.

 

[MaxyJR1]

I doubt they throw the flag if he clearly hits him in the torso, even if he was "defenseless". I also think they reverse the ejection if there were better replays that showed he didn't contact above the shoulders.

There would not have been a foul if he hits and wraps him up in the torso, correct. No angle would have changed that call, IMO. He launched and made high contact, that's why the call stood as called.

 

[PMWinSTP]

totally agree - rules have been shifted to give the benefit to the offense. this started from the top with the NFL under the guise of player safety but its clear the changes to QB hits and WRs were done for a specific reason, those guys are the stars of the league and sell the most jerseys/tickets so the league will protect them as much as possible

I agree that it favors the offensive players. I'd like to see them loosen up the tight pass interference calls as a counter balance. Can't hit like that anymore but DBs can have more aggressive hand-checking and contact on the coverage.

 

[Genious]

I doubt they throw the flag if he clearly hits him in the torso, even if he was "defenseless". I also think they reverse the ejection if there were better replays that showed he didn't contact above the shoulders.

Of course not, because the torso is not a protected area in the targeting rules for a defenseless receiver. That's the whole point of the rule, to move hits to the head/neck area (like last night's) down toward the torso area. And yes, if there were replays in a fantasy world that showed him hitting the torso, there would be no penalty, but in this world since he hit him in the head, it's a penalty. Most people are figuring this out just fine.

 

[Hammer em']

Having played football and have been lit up and lit up people I completely disagree with targeting as how it's managed today under a microscope. It's not fair to the defensive player. I'm all for player protection but it's not fair to the player.
It's not great to take cheap shots but the game happens. If you'd played it you'd understand how you can't make a decision to not hit in the moment like that.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Having played football and have been lit up and lit up people I completely disagree with targeting as how it's managed today under a microscope. It's not fair to the defensive player. I'm all for player protection but it's not fair to the player.
It's not great to take cheap shots but the game happens. If you'd played it you'd understand how you can't make a decision to not hit in the moment like that.

Honest question, in your opinion, was there anything wrong with Duke's hit last night?