Targeting

Donate To GopherHole
As I stated elsewhere, the play was never slowed down. Did he actually make contact with the helmet or just forearm/shoulder? Anyone record the game and have the action available on replay?
 

Hammer em' said:
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.
Click to expand...

The rule was made to protect the offensive player so of course it won't always be fair to the defensive player. That's why I've argued in the past they need to get rid of the automatic ejection and during the review make a call whether the hit could have been avoided or if it was intentional and decide then whether or not to eject a player. FTR Dukes hit last night will get called every time a sit was text book targeting.
 

Jack jones said:
As I stated elsewhere, the play was never slowed down. Did he actually make contact with the helmet or just forearm/shoulder? Anyone record the game and have the action available on replay?
Click to expand...

Duke did not make contact with his helmet but he launched his shoulder/forearm into the head/neck area of a defenseless receiver. It was 100% avoidable and absolutely should have been called targeting.
 

This is football ... maybe a worse play is when the RB is held up for an easy target and others gang tackle. They see an easy target and try to put as big a hit as possible on the runner being held up. Who is more defenseless than that. The refs never call that play. You can go on and on. Players are taught to dislodge the ball from the running back or receiver. Again ... other players change their angle of the fall of the offensive person. I am 100 percent in favor of two levels of penalty. Ejection IMO is too serious of a call for many of these marginal plays. It may fit the letter of the law but I think Duke's attempt was not meant to be a dirty hit.
 

bottlebass said:
The rule was made to protect the offensive player so of course it won't always be fair to the defensive player. That's why I've argued in the past they need to get rid of the automatic ejection and during the review make a call whether the hit could have been avoided or if it was intentional and decide then whether or not to eject a player. FTR Dukes hit last night will get called every time a sit was text book targeting.
Click to expand...

If "intentional" is to be considered, there'd be lots of intentional grounding penalties called. Worst rule in FB to allow a QB to toss the ball ten rows into the seats and get a reset at the LOS.
 


For better or worse the rule is going to it back on guys making hard tackles where they leap. If you leap and the offensive player changes elevation you can accidentally hit the player's head. It will be flag football soon enough.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
 

Jack jones said:
As I stated elsewhere, the play was never slowed down. Did he actually make contact with the helmet or just forearm/shoulder? Anyone record the game and have the action available on replay?
Click to expand...

The rule doesn't require that you hit him with your helmet. I feel like some people are missing that concept.
 

Genious said:
The rule doesn't require that you hit him with your helmet. I feel like some people are missing that concept.
Click to expand...

Most of those people are the old school types that feel like trying to take cheapshots out of the game somehow is going to turn the game into flag football.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Most of those people are the old school types that feel like trying to take cheapshots out of the game somehow is going to turn the game into flag football.
Click to expand...

I see that. Well watching that game last night you could see how solid the Gophers were tackling, bringing level of physicality unlike WSU had seen all year. Obviously you can deliver solid, even crushing hits without targeting. I don't need to see WR's getting bent backwards and falling to the ground limp to know that it was a physical defense.
 



Genious said:
The rule doesn't require that you hit him with your helmet. I feel like some people are missing that concept.
Click to expand...

Everyone misses this.

You don't need to hit him with your helmet. You don't need to hit his helmet.
 

minus the targeting penalties, Duke is a good player. look forward to the rest of his career
 

I hope we lead the Big Ten in targeting calls every year...every receiver coming over the middle will get dinosaur arms and hear footsteps when they play the Gophers!
 

NW vs Pitt today. The hit on Pitt QB would have been called targeting on us if we had done that. Put their QB out for the rest of the game. Wonder if Fitz was upset with that one.
 



West Virginia player just led with his helmet and hit Miami receiver in the head. No penalty, no review. Like I said, no consistency.
 

dlw4gophers said:
NW vs Pitt today. The hit on Pitt QB would have been called targeting on us if we had done that. Put their QB out for the rest of the game. Wonder if Fitz was upset with that one.
Click to expand...

Considering it was the right call I'm guessing he was OK with it. The whining about targeting here is unbelievable. Learn the rules before you complain about it. The QB was not defenseless so the defenseless player rule doesn't apply. Therefore it's only a penalty if he hit with the crown of his helmet, which he did not. Capisce?

The Gophers target like mad, referees are not out to get them. Come to grips with that.
 

Word said:
For better or worse the rule is going to it back on guys making hard tackles where they leap. If you leap and the offensive player changes elevation you can accidentally hit the player's head. It will be flag football soon enough.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

Which is extremely dumb if you think about it. If the receiver changes elevation and you accidentally hit his head, how could you be "targeting"? Targeting should be for when the defensive player appears to be clearly trying to hit the offensive player's head and shouldn't apply when the offensive player changes elevation.

Targeting is essentially just a rule to prevent all hard high hits and punish ones that they arbitrarily decide they don't like. I wish it was possible to edit videos from targeting or potentially targeting calls this year to make it impossible to know which team or player it was and then show the videos to 10 NCAA refs. I'm sure there would be so much variance in their judgement. It's the most subjective rule in the book, has a very harsh punishment, and it's not one of those things where every team gets penalized once in a while and it balances out. It should be incredibly obvious to the NCAA that something needs to be done with the targeting rule. I'd bet they know and don't care though because they prefer a lot of blown calls to lawsuits.
 

Genious said:
Considering it was the right call I'm guessing he was OK with it. The whining about targeting here is unbelievable. Learn the rules before you complain about it. The QB was not defenseless so the defenseless player rule doesn't apply. Therefore it's only a penalty if he hit with the crown of his helmet, which he did not. Capisce?

The Gophers target like mad, referees are not out to get them. Come to grips with that.
Click to expand...

+1000
 

Genious said:
Considering it was the right call I'm guessing he was OK with it. The whining about targeting here is unbelievable. Learn the rules before you complain about it. The QB was not defenseless so the defenseless player rule doesn't apply. Therefore it's only a penalty if he hit with the crown of his helmet, which he did not. Capisce?

The Gophers target like mad, referees are not out to get them. Come to grips with that.
Click to expand...
So you think all of the targeting calls on the gophers this year were correct?

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
 

Some guy said:
Everyone misses this.

You don't need to hit him with your helmet. You don't need to hit his helmet.
Click to expand...
How about shoulder to shoulder? Is that targeting?

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
 

Word said:
So you think all of the targeting calls on the gophers this year were correct?

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

Do you think all of them were wrong? Do you think the call on McGhee yesterday was wrong? I don't think all the calls from this year were correct but the one last night was and many of the others this season were as well.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Do you think all of them were wrong? Do you think the call on McGhee yesterday was wrong? I don't think all the calls from this year were correct but the one last night was and many of the others this season were as well.
Click to expand...

Celestin was only call I think was wrong. Again we're arguing judgement calls. Last night was blatant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


MNVCGUY said:
Do you think all of them were wrong? Do you think the call on McGhee yesterday was wrong? I don't think all the calls from this year were correct but the one last night was and many of the others this season were as well.
Click to expand...
I agreed with Sawvel's assessment of the penalties earlier this year. The rule has good intentions but the automatic ejection part is too harsh. It puts the refs in a tough position. Also, it is not being called consistently which is why a lot of Gopher fans are upset that we get so many. Just like an ump's strike zone, consistency is key.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
 

Well if it's just a matter of inconsistency by the refs the Gophers should just keep delivering hits to the heads of receivers as they're in the process of trying to make catches and I'm sure things will eventually even out. No need to do anything differently.

The Rallis one was a bad call but the others were legit. You can't be surprised with those flags.
 

Genious said:
Well if it's just a matter of inconsistency by the refs the Gophers should just keep delivering hits to the heads of receivers as they're in the process of trying to make catches and I'm sure things will eventually even out. No need to do anything differently.

The Rallis one was a bad call but the others were legit. You can't be surprised with those flags.
Click to expand...

No one said that.
 

GophersInIowa said:
No one said that.
Click to expand...
My biggest issue with the rule is it doesn't account for the offensive player changing elevation. Some hits that wouldn't have been head or neck area end up there after the offensive player moves at the last second. At least hockey refs can use some discretion when a player turns their back at the last second on a checking from behind call. They also have options for a minor to a major (including ejection). Not saying hockey has it perfect but it's a better system than football.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
 


Hammer em' said:
High yes, targeting no.

I was taught to hit the chest area not the head. But it's easy to miss.
Click to expand...
Duke's the only one who knows. I intentionally tried to hurt someone NEVER on the field. That's why I think targeting is wrong but maybe I don't understand others. Hard to imagine the refs do either.
 

Hammer em' said:
Duke's the only one who knows. I intentionally tried to hurt someone NEVER on the field. That's why I think targeting is wrong but maybe I don't understand others. Hard to imagine the refs do either.
Click to expand...

He's not the only one who knows. If the ref saw him hit the kid in the helmet it's targeting. And intent to injure is irrelevant.
 

K-state db

Saw a maybe the most blatant targeting I've seen all year by a K-State DB. Leaped upward towards his head. I thought to myself that was an immediate ejection. It was never called. They just need to be more consistent ... add two levels of the penalty after review (15 yards and or ejection depending on review) ... then those of us from the older era might be satisfied. Yes ... I understand the rule ... just think it is badly applied.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom