Targeting

Donate To GopherHole
MNSpaniel said:
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.
Click to expand...

This.
 

I actually think there should be no ejection ever. Having an ejection increases the likelihood of luck determining the winners and losers of games.


A bad call has a larger impact. An unlucky break has a larger impact. The opponent unlucky break has a larger impact. Not good for football.



Make it a 40 yard penalty if you want.
Don't cost a player a game because an offensive guy fell down. You could say ejection is optional pending review, but seeing as how refs can't even call holding consistently we should take away their ability to make a season changing decision.
 


A target that was worse than at least 6 of the calls against the Gophers was just overturned against Va Tech.

Unreal how inconsistent they are.
 



Unregistered User said:
A target that was worse than at least 6 of the calls against the Gophers was just overturned against Va Tech.

Unreal how inconsistent they are.
Click to expand...

Very inconsistent. However, the Arkansas player's crown is down. You could also argue the WR was no longer defenseless. The defender has his head up as well.

Lots of gray and interpretation in the call.

I firmly believe the Big Ten calls it more strict than any conference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

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

A Colorado DB stuck the Ok St QB in the head with his shoulder while the QB was going into his slide. Big hit, forcible contact. Targeting called.

Overturned. Someone that consistently defends the officials, please explain. Specifically Maxy or MNVC.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
A Colorado DB stuck the Ok St QB in the head with his shoulder while the QB was going into his slide. Big hit, forcible contact. Targeting called.

Overturned. Someone that consistently defends the officials, please explain. Specifically Maxy or MNVC.
Click to expand...

I think that should be the right call because the defender didn't lead with his head and the contact was made to a player that was sliding. But from what I've seen this year, it should have been called targeting.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
A Colorado DB stuck the Ok St QB in the head with his shoulder while the QB was going into his slide. Big hit, forcible contact. Targeting called.

Overturned. Someone that consistently defends the officials, please explain. Specifically Maxy or MNVC.
Click to expand...

Didn't have the game on so I have not yet seen the play in question.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
A Colorado DB stuck the Ok St QB in the head with his shoulder while the QB was going into his slide. Big hit, forcible contact. Targeting called.

Overturned. Someone that consistently defends the officials, please explain. Specifically Maxy or MNVC.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't see how that one was overturned at all. Met every part of the rule. They should specifically state what it is about the play that resulted in the overturn. I mean you need indisputable evidence, and I thought it was indisputable in favor of targeting. Tough for me to explain.
 

On the VA Tech one I don't think the receiver was defenseless, and wasn't with the crown of the defender's helmet so I thought they got it right. One man's opinion.
 



Go back and look at the hit by Duke M on Austin C and explain the difference with the VA Tech one? Even his from the bowl game?
 

GophersInIowa said:
I think that should be the right call because the defender didn't lead with his head and the contact was made to a player that was sliding. But from what I've seen this year, it should have been called targeting.
Click to expand...

I thought he did lead with his head.... he just missed because the QB was sliding... and put his shoulder into the QB's head. But hitting a sliding QB I thought was something you couldn't do.....

WTF

Either way all these players need to play it with their own head up and wrap up the opponent. No other way around this.
 

Shoulder to head is per the letter of the rule. Helmet, shoulder arm, hand to head of a defenseless player. He popped him.

Maybe there should be a conclave this winter and they can get this thing figured out. Also, the definition of a catch and a football move. With precision.
 


GFBfan said:
Go back and look at the hit by Duke M on Austin C and explain the difference with the VA Tech one? Even his from the bowl game?
Click to expand...

Duke's was in the midst of the receiver's attempt to catch the ball. Therefore the receiver was defenseless under the rule, which means that the crown of the helmet criteria is taken away, and all that is required is that the defender target the offensive player, making forcible contact to the head/neck area. The difference was essentially a couple of steps by the receiver between the two situations.
 

The rule (again)


Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head
or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
 

GFBfan said:
Go back and look at the hit by Duke M on Austin C and explain the difference with the VA Tech one? Even his from the bowl game?
Click to expand...

In the bowl game the receiver was defenseless. In the VA Tech game he was not. That's a huge difference under the rule. If he's not defenseless you need to use the crown of your helmet to run afoul of the rule. If he is defenseless, all you need to do is target, making forcible contact with the head/neck area using your helmet, shoulder, forearm or hand. I believe Duke did the latter and I thought it was pretty clear, though not definitive on replay because the helmet was obstructed.
 

The consistency of calls or non consistency is obvious in most of the arguments .... I still think the thing that gets missed is when other players hit the receiver and change the angle of the fall. Everything that Pompous listed up there states attacking head or neck area. Once the defender commits himself it is near impossible to change his angle of tackle. In lots of plays I see on TV the receiver purposely changes his body position or another player changes the angle of the fall after a defender committed. Yes Duke launched , however, IMO Duke was attacking mid-torso and then things changed after he committed.
 

MNSpaniel said:
The consistency of calls or non consistency is obvious in most of the arguments .... I still think the thing that gets missed is when other players hit the receiver and change the angle of the fall. Everything that Pompous listed up there states attacking head or neck area. Once the defender commits himself it is near impossible to change his angle of tackle. In lots of plays I see on TV the receiver purposely changes his body position or another player changes the angle of the fall after a defender committed. Yes Duke launched , however, IMO Duke was attacking mid-torso and then things changed after he committed.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been saying. I think if the rule is called this way it will take away players leaping to make tackles. Once you're in the air you can't adjust to the offensive player.
 

Call me crazy, but could rules be adopted for the type of routes offenses can run? Most targeting calls are on quick slants or "seam" throws down the middle. How about a rule a receiver cannot make a reception between the hashes and within 20 yards of LOS (unless said receiver has stopped or is moving back towards LOR). I know more rules would suck, but with the targeting rules as they are we are going to see more and more of these "chuck and duck" offenses as you can't take a shot at a receiver coming across the middle.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
A Colorado DB stuck the Ok St QB in the head with his shoulder while the QB was going into his slide. Big hit, forcible contact. Targeting called.

Overturned. Someone that consistently defends the officials, please explain. Specifically Maxy or MNVC.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen it, but as I've said, no conference calls it tighter than Big Ten.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

LesBolstad said:
Call me crazy, but could rules be adopted for the type of routes offenses can run? Most targeting calls are on quick slants or "seam" throws down the middle. How about a rule a receiver cannot make a reception between the hashes and within 20 yards of LOS (unless said receiver has stopped or is moving back towards LOR). I know more rules would suck, but with the targeting rules as they are we are going to see more and more of these "chuck and duck" offenses as you can't take a shot at a receiver coming across the middle.
Click to expand...

Would be easier and more plausible to loosen up the pass interference/holding calls on the cover guys. Let there be more contact and hand checking. Right now, they can barely touch the receiver until the catch.
 

LesBolstad said:
Call me crazy, but could rules be adopted for the type of routes offenses can run? Most targeting calls are on quick slants or "seam" throws down the middle. How about a rule a receiver cannot make a reception between the hashes and within 20 yards of LOS (unless said receiver has stopped or is moving back towards LOR). I know more rules would suck, but with the targeting rules as they are we are going to see more and more of these "chuck and duck" offenses as you can't take a shot at a receiver coming across the middle.
Click to expand...

Your crazy - adding illegal offense to the mix would not help the problem. Targeting feels like a massive issue to us because we got nailed with it so often but across the board there have not been a ton of calls. There are some inconsistencies in how it is called to be sure and hopefully that is something that will be addressed but the reality is that it is on defensive coaches to continue to work with the players to get them to tackle in a way that won't lead to getting called for targeting. About 3/4 of the calls that went against us this year were correct with the Rallis one being bad and the Celistin one being technically correct but very unfair to him because there was nothing he could have done to avoid it.

I still hope they evaluate the auto ejection and figure out a way to incorporate intent into the call. I understand that leads to more judgement calls on the part of the officials but at least they could maybe take a call like the one on Celestin and remove the auto eject since he clearly did not do it on purpose. Save the auto eject for guys like Duke that want to launch and go for the kill shot.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Your crazy - adding illegal offense to the mix would not help the problem. Targeting feels like a massive issue to us because we got nailed with it so often but across the board there have not been a ton of calls. There are some inconsistencies in how it is called to be sure and hopefully that is something that will be addressed but the reality is that it is on defensive coaches to continue to work with the players to get them to tackle in a way that won't lead to getting called for targeting. About 3/4 of the calls that went against us this year were correct with the Rallis one being bad and the Celistin one being technically correct but very unfair to him because there was nothing he could have done to avoid it.

I still hope they evaluate the auto ejection and figure out a way to incorporate intent into the call. I understand that leads to more judgement calls on the part of the officials but at least they could maybe take a call like the one on Celestin and remove the auto eject since he clearly did not do it on purpose. Save the auto eject for guys like Duke that want to launch and go for the kill shot.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure this is the issue. Seems like SEC rarely calls it. Watched game after game and even my SEC buddy was commenting on it.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Your crazy - adding illegal offense to the mix would not help the problem. Targeting feels like a massive issue to us because we got nailed with it so often but across the board there have not been a ton of calls. There are some inconsistencies in how it is called to be sure and hopefully that is something that will be addressed but the reality is that it is on defensive coaches to continue to work with the players to get them to tackle in a way that won't lead to getting called for targeting. About 3/4 of the calls that went against us this year were correct with the Rallis one being bad and the Celistin one being technically correct but very unfair to him because there was nothing he could have done to avoid it.

I still hope they evaluate the auto ejection and figure out a way to incorporate intent into the call. I understand that leads to more judgement calls on the part of the officials but at least they could maybe take a call like the one on Celestin and remove the auto eject since he clearly did not do it on purpose. Save the auto eject for guys like Duke that want to launch and go for the kill shot.
Click to expand...

Including intent would be nice. Have targeting or whatever they want to call it be a 15 yard penalty but only an automatic ejection if you get 2 in a game. Require that the conference review each targeting call during the week and allow them to issue punishments anywhere from nothing if they think it was an accident to done for the season if someone is showing a pattern of intentionally trying to injure players.

A 2 quarter penalty/ejection seems crazy for targeting. If someone is actually trying to injure other players and is intentionally taking headshots, they need to go for much longer than a game. If someone is just trying to knock the ball loose and happens to hit the receiver in the head, anything more than 15 yards is overkill. It seems like they just averaged out all possible situations in which someone makes hard contact to the head.

I really like the way the NHL does it. If someone turns or changes elevation at the last second and it is an accident, there is no penalty. If there's a bit of head contact that should have been avoided but that isn't too bad, it's a minor penalty. If the refs determine that a player needs to leave the game to keep the game from getting out of hand or to prevent further incidents, they have the power to do so. After the game, the league tries to look at the situation and can consider intent, specific circumstances, how avoidable it was, and player history. They also can and have issued long suspensions, including one for half a season. I wish the NCAA would do something like that.
 

LSU defender just smoked a Louisville receiver and it appeared there was contact high. Refs didn't even flinch, no review.
 

GophersInIowa said:
LSU defender just smoked a Louisville receiver and it appeared there was contact high. Refs didn't even flinch, no review.
Click to expand...

The inconsistency within even 1 game is amazing. Shouldn't eject a player based on such a subjective measure.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom