Question about targeting

[DzynKingRTR]

I don't have a problem with this in concept. But except in extreme cases, I don't know how you determine whether the targeting is intentional or not.

Leaving it ip to refs to determine intent is a bad idea. Remember when we had 2 types of facemask penalties?

 

[colbysullivan]

Unintentional targeting 15 yards and ejection
Intentional targeting - 8 quarters

There’s no way to consistently determine that

 

[crimsonaudio]

I mostly agree with this, but NCAA officials can’t even spell NCAA. I hate the idea of leaving it up to their judgment. I’d rather they just stay with the “intent is irrelevant” clause if they want to get these kinds of hits out of the game.

You cannot eliminate the hits. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and punishing a tackler because the runner shifted or decided to slide at the last moment isn't helping anyone.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Leaving it ip to refs to determine intent is a bad idea. Remember when we had 2 types of facemask penalties?

I preferred that. Now, even the most minor of fouls is 15 yards. At least then an incidental had the *chance* of being a five yarder...

 

[colbysullivan]

You cannot eliminate the hits. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and punishing a tackler because the runner shifted or decided to slide at the last moment isn't helping anyone.

Oh, I know. They definitely need to start callin targeting on the offensive players when they purposely lower their head. It’s more dangerous for the person doing the hit honestly.

 

[colbysullivan]

I preferred that. Now, even the most minor of fouls is 15 yards. At least then an incidental had the *chance* of being a five yarder...

I was mad when they changed it. The way they phrased it was “there is no such thing as an incidental facemask now”. I took that to mean they were only going to call the really egregious ones. But no, even the accidental ones are 15 yards now, so dumb.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

Unintentional targeting 15 yards and ejection
Intentional targeting - 8 quarters

This is harsh and it might prevent the Intentional targeting from happening..

But it’s still allows for the human element of a Ref crew making a terribly costly call that could be wrong.

They are so wishy washy about how they perceive grey area calls.

I can just see Autry now calling an Intentional targeting on Bray Hubbard that was unintentional and then boom he misses 2 games against SEC teams for an unfair call.

Referee’s need to be held accountable for bad calls and those bad calls should be able to legitimately be appealed before we give out 2 game suspensions.

I don’t trust those striped idiots that much.

 

[Ledsteplin]

You only sit out the first 2 quarters of the next game if the foul occurs in the 2nd half. My idea is a blanket 60 minute penalty so it’s applied equally across the board. This of course makes sense so they won’t do it.

Got it. So Dre basically sits out the few minutes that were left in the 4th quarter. He wouldn't normally play hardly any in the first two quarters of the next game anyway. So the other guy sits almost four quarters. Still not exactly equal penalties. I find it odd how it can work out in different situations.

 

[BamaInCummingGA]

Should be the entire game it happened and the next game.

The top of that guys helmet hit the facemask of another player, easy call.

These guys are bigger, stronger, and faster than any point in history. The damage is irrefutable, catastrophic, and permanent. That type of nonsense needs to be removed from football if the fans want to continue to see it played.

Honest question: do you think running backs and receivers should get called for targeting when they lead with their helmets? Because that can be just as dangerous.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Honest question: do you think running backs and receivers should get called for targeting when they lead with their helmets? Because that can be just as dangerous.

Trent Richardson was I believe called for it in the NFL, he was never the same after the hit.

Top of the crown? Absolutely.

Cut back blocks and corners hitting receivers mid catch should be six week suspension no pay.

 

[colbysullivan]

I would be OK with it, if the rule was changed.

The rule already includes offensive players, they just never call it.

 

[dtgreg]

This is harsh and it might prevent the Intentional targeting from happening..

But it’s still allows for the human element of a Ref crew making a terribly costly call that could be wrong.

They are so wishy washy about how they perceive grey area calls.

I can just see Autry now calling an Intentional targeting on Bray Hubbard that was unintentional and then boom he misses 2 games against SEC teams for an unfair call.

Referee’s need to be held accountable for bad calls and those bad calls should be able to legitimately be appealed before we give out 2 game suspensions.

I don’t trust those striped idiots that much.

Yep. With gambling so prevalent and legal and open, we have to be careful. If folks start thinking this is all fixed by someone they don't and can't know, it'll be the end. I'll take up a healthier hobby.

 

[BhamToTexas]

Maybe you sit for the rest of that game, then the league reviews the play to see if it was egregious enough to warrant missing the next game. I know, trusting the league...

 

[BamaMoon]

You cannot eliminate the hits. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and punishing a tackler because the runner shifted or decided to slide at the last moment isn't helping anyone.

back to leather helmets/no facemasks?

 

[BamaInCummingGA]

The rule already includes offensive players, they just never call it.

So then in effect it's not about safety but about more offensive play because if it were safety they'd call it across the board and not just on the defense.

 

[BamaInCummingGA]

To be clear, my problem with targeting as it is written and called (or not called, as the case may be) is this: The offensive guy can lower his head all he wants and be a battering ram with no penalty called but a defensive guy can't. On top of that, a defensive guy goes low to keep from hitting said offensive guy in the head but at the last second when the defensive guy has committed and no chance of him being able to change direction the offensive guy lowers his head and defensive guy gets called for targeting. The rule needs to be changed where when those things happen targeting is not called. It is totally unfair to the defense.

 

[FF4bama]

To be clear, my problem with targeting as it is written and called (or not called, as the case may be) is this: The offensive guy can lower his head all he wants and be a battering ram with no penalty called but a defensive guy can't. On top of that, a defensive guy goes low to keep from hitting said offensive guy in the head but at the last second when the defensive guy has committed and no chance of him being able to change direction the offensive guy lowers his head and defensive guy gets called for targeting. The rule needs to be changed where when those things happen targeting is not called. It is totally unfair to the defense.

When the situation you described above happens imo there should be offsetting targeting penalties, no ejections. This would allow the league to keep focus on the issue without punishing players for something that is sometimes unavoidable.

 

[BamaMoon]

To be clear, my problem with targeting as it is written and called (or not called, as the case may be) is this: The offensive guy can lower his head all he wants and be a battering ram with no penalty called but a defensive guy can't. On top of that, a defensive guy goes low to keep from hitting said offensive guy in the head but at the last second when the defensive guy has committed and no chance of him being able to change direction the offensive guy lowers his head and defensive guy gets called for targeting. The rule needs to be changed where when those things happen targeting is not called. It is totally unfair to the defense.

Nailed it! Couldn't have said it better!!!

When the situation you described above happens imo there should be offsetting targeting penalties, no ejections. This would allow the league to keep focus on the issue without punishing players for something that is sometimes unavoidable.

Or, maybe just call that a football play because that's all it is.

Targetting should be reserved for when an offensive player is stood up/being tackled/in the grasp of a tackler and another defensive player just tees off on his head.

Otherwise, most cases of targeting are just induced by two players making football moves.

 

[BamaInCummingGA]

When the situation you described above happens imo there should be offsetting targeting penalties, no ejections. This would allow the league to keep focus on the issue without punishing players for something that is sometimes unavoidable.

I can agree with this