Question about targeting

[Smoovee7]

Weeks for LSU was called for targeting about 3 minutes into the UF game and had to sit out the rest of the game. Wanted to see what you all thought of the targeting rule in general.

He did that in the first few minutes of the 1st qtr and basically had to sit out all 4 quarters. If you do that with 2 minutes left in the game you have to sit out the last 2 minutes and the first 2 qtr's of the next game.

So IDK, I'm not here to discuss whether it was targeting, just to say depending on when it occurred, you can sit out basically 4 quarters or 2 quarters. I wonder if that should be tweaked and if so any ideas (and yes i know don't get a targeting penalty is the best option).

 

[ReturnToGlory]

I would like to see no ejections. But if you have to eject, let it be for 2nd targeting.

 

[AlexanderFan]

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.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I would like to see no ejections. But if you have to eject, let it be for 2nd targeting.

That has always been my belief. Do not eject until the second offense, unless, the player is a serial targeting offender. If the player has had 3 targeting offenses in 3 games, he needs to sit for his own and everyone else's safety.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I have no problem with ejecting the targeting offender. It's for the safety of both the targeter and targetee (yes, I made that word up). There's just too much risk of permanent damage to both.

Where I have a problem is the inconsistent application. It's just way too variable. A given action might be targeting according to this officiating crew, but not that crew. If there's been an egregious targeting violation, say taking out an opposing team's star player in an entirely unrelated game, it might be ruled targeting this week, but wouldn't have been last week.

A clean hit that just "looks bad" can be ruled targeting even if it doesn't fit the ostensible definition. And don't get me started on the fact that some central office reviews all targeting calls, and can make the call even though the on-field crew didn't.

I cut the on-field crew a bit of slack. They have tenths of seconds to make the call, and the game is so fast today. But the central review room? They have a gazillion angles they can view in frame-by-frame detail, all synched up so they can see what's happening at which instant at any point in the relevant space. And they still get it wrong. How, I have no clue.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but it does make me wonder about outside conflicts of interest, **cough**cough**betting**cough**cough.

 

[Smoovee7]

Yeah I just think depending on when it occurs the penalty could be twice as long i.e. 2 quarters vs 4 quarters.

 

[colbysullivan]

I think the simple answer is they are out for the next 60 minutes of football, just like a penalty in hockey. That way they miss a full game’s worth of football.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I think the ejection should be based on the hit. We've seen players make dirty hits intended to cause injury or knock someone out of the game - that should mean an ejection. But we've also seen situations where players do everything right and the target moves / shifts direction at the last moment causing the impact - in that case, it should just be a penalty.

But before all that, the rule needs to be clarified dramatically.

 

[colbysullivan]

I think the ejection should be based on the hit. We've seen players make dirty hits intended to cause injury or knock someone out of the game - that should mean an ejection. But we've also seen situations where players do everything right and the target moves / shifts direction at the last moment causing the impact - in that case, it should just be a penalty.

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.

 

[CB4]

Where I have a problem is the inconsistent application. It's just way too variable. A given action might be targeting according to this officiating crew, but not that crew. If there's been an egregious targeting violation, say taking out an opposing team's star player in an entirely unrelated game, it might be ruled targeting this week, but wouldn't have been last week.

Yeah I’ve given up on trying to determine what constitutes targeting and holding….and DPI….and OPI….and…

I’ve only been watching football for about 60 years. And now I understand that I don’t understand any of it.

 

[UAH]

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.

It was obvious and intentional in this case! It has to reflect on coaching when a key player puts himself in this position early in a major game.

 

[AlistarWills]

There was a targeting call in the aTm/ND game last night. ND kid got tossed. I don’t think there was malice involved, his target got lower than he did. But he dropped his head and that’s in my opinion why he got the call and ejection. Sure it hurts a team but if there isn’t something severe done, then the player won’t learn. If the coaches aren’t actively teaching these kids to to NOT drop their head nor aim for another guys head, then the risk of losing someone important for a while is their punishment. I guess I’m saying I have no problem with the ejections. But I also agree, there are enough hits on film that there needs to be a class from those making the rule, as to what targeting actually is. Class should be mandatory to all officials and every team playing under the NCAA jurisdiction. Same class so all officials and players and coaches are on the exact same page.

 

[Ledsteplin]

Dre Kirkpatrick Jr is 2nd or 3rd string. He doesn't play much in the first half. He was called for targeting late in the 4th quarter against ULM. So he missed only a few minutes left in the game. Then he missed the first two quarters against Wisky. But he rarely plays in the first two anyway. So.he didn't really have much of a penalty. Whereas the player you refer to is a starter and basically missed 6 quarters. The penalty was not the same for these two players.

 

[colbysullivan]

Dre Kirkpatrick Jr is 2nd or 3rd string. He doesn't play much in the first half. He was called for targeting late in the 4th quarter against ULM. So he missed only a few minutes left in the game. Then he missed the first two quarters against Wisky. But he rarely plays in the first two anyway. So.he didn't really have much of a penalty. Whereas the player you refer to is a starter and basically missed 6 quarters. The penalty was not the same for these two players.

How did he miss 6 quarters?

 

[4Q Basket Case]

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.

I think a committee of coaches makes the rules, subject to the approval of the members as a whole.

 

[Ledsteplin]

How did he miss 6 quarters?

I may be confused how this works. Does he only sit out the remainder of the game, or also the first 2 quarters of the next game?

 

[colbysullivan]

I may be confused how this works. Does he only sit out the remainder of the game, or also the first 2 quarters of the next game?

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.

 

[CajunCrimson]

I think the ejection should be based on the hit. We've seen players make dirty hits intended to cause injury or knock someone out of the game - that should mean an ejection. But we've also seen situations where players do everything right and the target moves / shifts direction at the last moment causing the impact - in that case, it should just be a penalty.

But before all that, the rule needs to be clarified dramatically.

Unintentional targeting 15 yards and ejection
Intentional targeting - 8 quarters

 

[teamplayer]

It is a horribly written and horribly enforced rule. It is usually very clear when a guy is taking a dirty shot, and those guys should be ejected. However, it is horrible to punish a defensive player who does everything correctly only to have the offensive player lower his head and cause contact at the last second. It is unjust and simply horrible.

All replay is over used and takes entirely too much time. I think they should get 15 seconds and be able to watch it twice. If it is obviously wrong, change it; otherwise, keep the action and flow of the game moving. Also, don't waste time bringing out the stupid video screen for the on-field ref to use. He's not making the call, so quit wasting our time. Please, for the sake of my sanity and my enjoyment of the game, stop these ridiculous situations and never make me listen to another "expert" rules official whose opinion differs from what they call half the time. Sheesh, it is maddening.

Anyway, that is what I think and why I can barely watch games any longer. Carry on, Tidefans! Roll Tide!

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Unintentional targeting 15 yards and ejection
Intentional targeting - 8 quarters

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.