Question: Can A Offensive Player Be Called For Targeting

[TideMan09]

I saw this clip on another message board & they were arguing if this should be targeting..When a offensive player lowers his head into a defensive player like this, is this a form of targeting, I'm not saying Murray is in this clip, they were using this clip as an example if this is targeting when a offensive player lowers their head into a defender..Murray literally trucks over #5 as he heads for the TD & launches himself like a missile (and it is helmet to helmet)..He's lucky he didn't snap his neck..

 

[crimsonaudio]

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

Emphasis added.

 

[TideMan09]

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

Emphasis added.

Do you think Murray should have been called for targeting on this play like some are arguing Brad..Either way..I hate when a ball carrier lowers their head like this..It's a broken neck waiting to happen..

 

[theBIGyowski]

I remember NFL analysts using Trent as an example of a player who would lower his helmet in order to truck a defender...and how that would be outlawed in the future. Not sure if that would be the same case in college though.

The problem with the rule is that the way it is enforced right now has no regard to the "spirit" of the rule. The video replay tries to err on the side of the defender...but the penalty (the intentional targeting) is never reversed...even though the replay official essentially waives the penalty by saying it was not intentional.

 

[TideMan09]

I remember NFL analysts using Trent as an example of a player who would lower his helmet in order to truck a defender...and how that would be outlawed in the future. Not sure if that would be the same case in college though.

The problem with the rule is that the way it is enforced right now has no regard to the "spirit" of the rule. The video replay tries to err on the side of the defender...but the penalty (the intentional targeting) is never reversed...even though the replay official essentially waives the penalty by saying it was not intentional.

Honestly..I don't see how they can enforce this when a ball carrier lowers their lead before a collision, it's just human nature to ball up like that before a collision, to lessen the impact & just to plain inflict hurt on the one you're colliding with..It would change the game tremendously if they call this targeting on ball carriers..Actually change the game even more than calling "Targeting" penalties against defensive players had impacted college football..JMO

 

[bamaslaw]

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

Emphasis added.

So against Auburn, yes. :biggrin:

 

[cbi1972]

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

Emphasis added.

This text on its own is ambiguous, pending the definition of a defenseless player.
Last year, no defensive player would ever be considered defenseless, however this year, they expanded the definition to potentially include them.

NCAA Implements "Kenny Bell Rule" Regarding Defenseless Players

That article included an analysis about what the NCAA defines as "defenseless players", an important facet of the rules because "defenseless players" should be protected, as hits in those specific conditions should be considered areas in which players could receive severe injuries, the obvious reason being that they cannot protect themselves.

The defenseless player definitions are included in the NCAA rule book under section 2-27-14. However, a rule change has been implemented this season to include the following amongst the "defenseless player" definitions:

2-27-14g - "a player who receives a blind-side block".

Here's the Kenny Bell hit again, as I know that Nebraska fans can't get enough of it, while it makes Wisconsin fans cringe (our only revenge for that game):

 

[bamagradinATL]

The boogs are a joke. I don't see it, they're full of themselves. They won the game, move one.

 

[uaintn]

I've read the rule and nothing in it says that a ball carrier cannot be called for targeting, but I haven't seen it called that way. There was an interesting discussion after the A&M game as to whether the intended receiver could have been called for targeting if Ha Ha had gotten there a half a second earlier and intercepted the pass where he was flagged.....

I'm confident that in a situation where a DB, for example, went high to try to make a pick, missed the ball, was in the process of coming down, and got hit helmet to helmet by a blocker at a time he was deemed defenseless, they'd probably throw the flag.... If the guy that hit him was the receiver that caught the ball I'm not sure the same answer applies.

 

[theBIGyowski]

Honestly..I don't see how they can enforce this when a ball carrier lowers their lead before a collision, it's just human nature to ball up like that before a collision, to lessen the impact & just to plain inflict hurt on the one you're colliding with..It would change the game tremendously if they call this targeting on ball carriers..Actually change the game even more than calling "Targeting" penalties against defensive players had impacted college football..JMO

I want to say the NFL was forced to do it because of all of the concussion lawsuits...so I am not sure it's something that would ever make it into the college game for that reason.

I agree with you though that it would be impossible to enforce in a fair way on the offensive side of the ball...other than probably an offensive player making a block on a defenseless defender. I assume that would be handled under the existing "unnecessary roughness" penalty though.

 

[BamaDude06]

IIRC, the NFL rule only applies to open field tackles. Goal line situations, running up the middle on 3rd & 1, etc. are exempt.

 

[TideMan09]

The boogs are a joke. I don't see it, they're full of themselves. They won the game, move one.

No one is arguing otherwise..I saw this discussion on another Barner Board & thought it was an interesting discussion..Since I don't post on their board..I started the discussion here, about if a offensive player should be called for "targeting", when they lower their head & cause a helmet to helmet collision..This has nothing to do is The Barn won the game or not..At all..

 

[cbi1972]

Ball carriers should never be flagged for targeting under the current rules.

 

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

Ball carriers should never be flagged for targeting under the current rules.

Same thing I was thinking.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[TideMan09]

Same thing I was thinking.


Sent from my iPhone

That's what I was leaning toward as well..I don't see how they can ask a ball carrier to brace themselves for a hard collision & that's why they lower their head before contact..And it could cause worse injuries to a ball carrier when they are not allowed to brace for an impact as well..

 

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

That's what I was leaning toward as well..I don't see how they can ask a ball carrier to brace themselves for a hard collision & that's why they lower their head before contact..And it could cause worse injuries to a ball carrier when they are not allowed to brace for an impact as well..

If the guy wraps up he doesn't have to worry about the call. So few wrap up though. They use the equipment to make the tackle when the equipment is there for safety, I guess the information got lost in translation. Everyone is ready to be on top ten on ESPN.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[cbi1972]

If the guy wraps up he doesn't have to worry about the call. So few wrap up though. They use the equipment to make the tackle when the equipment is there for safety, I guess the information got lost in translation. Everyone is ready to be on top ten on ESPN.


Sent from my iPhone

Spectators want it too.

 

[crimsonaudio]

This text on its own is ambiguous, pending the definition of a defenseless player.
Last year, no defensive player would ever be considered defenseless, however this year, they expanded the definition to potentially include them.

I agree 100% on its ambiguity, and in fact think that crack-back blocks like that (and Dial'***** on Murray) should be part of the game. I also think that they can refine the rule (describing what constitutes a defenseless player as well as removing the penalty if the targeting call is overturned) as I believe it serves a valid purpose.

But a shot to the head of a player diving to make a catch is very different than chasing a player to make a tackle without watching where you are going. I can still hear my coaches yelling at us to 'keep you head on a swivel!' when on kickoff / punt coverage...

 

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

Spectators want it too.

Yeah, not all though. It's just not good football to me.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[pigsinspace]

Looks like targeting to me. Murray was wrapped up and defenseless, and the Auburn defender led with his helmet. BTW, the ball crossed the plane, so they should stop whining about that one as well.