|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
Hall of Famer [22225]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7085
Joined: 8/31/03
|
My single biggest complaint with targeting.
Sep 29, 2021, 8:46 AM
|
|
I get the reason for the rule. They keep telling us, every time it is called, that it is to protect the player who is taregting from serious injury. If I make initial contact with you with the crown of my helmet then I am endangering ME. They don't want ME putting MYSELF at risk.
1. When a defensive player lowers his helmet and makes initial contact with the crown, it is a penalty.
2. So when a running back lowers his helmet and makes initial contact with the crown, why isn't it a penalty?
3. When contact between two players is helmet to helmet with both players using the crown of their helmets why isn't it targeting on both players.
Why are we only protecting defensive players from injuring themselves? Don't we care about the running backs and wide receivers?
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [26479]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20622
Joined: 9/2/02
|
Going back to leather helmets would fix it
Sep 29, 2021, 8:49 AM
|
|
Right away ...
Come to think of it, it would also eliminate the faskmask penalty
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3371]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2730
Joined: 11/14/14
|
Re: Going back to leather helmets would fix it
Sep 29, 2021, 8:59 AM
|
|
I know you are saying this jokingly but why not make helmets out of softer material that can absorb impact?
If players are wearing a outer layer on their helmets during practice to prevent concussions why not wear something like that in the game?
There are plenty of products out there that have these types of properties.
The game has changed, it’s time the equipment followed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
big helmets would fix it
Sep 29, 2021, 9:02 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115417
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26479]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20622
Joined: 9/2/02
|
lol***
Sep 29, 2021, 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
i agree...they should overturn it more often if the offense
Sep 29, 2021, 8:59 AM
|
|
player clearly dips into the defender. i see this more than anything.
Ironhead Heyward would be unstable now a days.. he would have the entire defense ejected by the 3rd qrt.
and the ejection should always be an option based off the hit. shouldn't be automatic. The most protect player on the field is the QB...even the roughing the QB penalty doesn't require an ejection .
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48150]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14875
Joined: 11/7/20
|
Re: My single biggest complaint with targeting.
Sep 29, 2021, 9:02 AM
|
|
Good point. I'd like to hear a refs take on whether or not this has been addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24056]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9775
Joined: 10/7/15
|
Heard a pretty good discussion on targeting by one of the
Sep 29, 2021, 9:02 AM
|
|
Sirius XM Talking heads suggesting the ejection for targeting be eliminated; or changed to ejection if a second offense.
Thought he made a good point - and let me caveat this up front by saying no ‘observer’ knows for certain the intent - as it seems (to me) that 8 or 9 out of ten flagged occurrences are not ‘intentional’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4746]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4801
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: My single biggest complaint with targeting.
Sep 29, 2021, 9:39 AM
|
|
Targeting has evolved from being used to prevent obvious head hunting type behavior by the defense (which may warrant an ejection), into the kind of hair splitting, bang bang judgment call that is entirely subjective. The vast majority of targeting calls today involve no malice by the defender and seem to be called only when convenient since either the defender or offensive player lead with their helmet literally dozens of times a game. Yet only every once in a while is it called and then suddenly that player is ejected, which seems ridiculous for all but the most egregious of hits. Good intentions gone wrong sums it up best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: My single biggest complaint with targeting.
Sep 29, 2021, 10:10 AM
|
|
Targeting needs to go the way of the roughing/running into the kicker penalties.
5 yard incidental and 15 yard flagrant.
The name of the rule should also be changed to something along the lines of "dangerous contact". The word targeting assumes intent in every instance of contact. To target is an intentional act and the rule is far beyond only intentional acts to target.
There should never be an ejection unless the offense is ejectable based on blatant intent to injure. I'm talking maybe once or twice per season over the whole of college football.
Example would be a few years ago when the FSU player left his feet to hit the Clemson player helmet to helmet who was 50 yards from the play on a turnover play. I don't remember the players involved but it was correctly called targeting at the time, but I believe was booth initiated because it was so far from the play that no officials were looking in that direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [37746]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9316
Joined: 6/13/19
|
Re: My single biggest complaint with targeting.
Sep 29, 2021, 10:26 AM
|
|
Intentional... you know like Alabama head hunting against DW4 in both games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [37746]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9316
Joined: 6/13/19
|
Re: My single biggest complaint with targeting.
Sep 29, 2021, 10:24 AM
|
|
The single biggest problem with the targeting penalty is a total lack of consistency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [186]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 180
Joined: 10/11/13
|
Re: My single biggest complaint with targeting.
Sep 29, 2021, 2:43 PM
|
|
do like hockey and put them in the penalty box for a specific time and the time only counts when the defense is on the field if it happened on defense same for offense,and its time off the game clock, lets say 2 minutes or even 3 minutes and if that runs close to halftime or end of the game then thats the way it is,would start over at the end of the half, so if the penalty was for 3 min and only 2min was left until halftime you would just miss just the 2 mins, would not carry over to the 2nd half, that would be way better than ejections, now if it was deemed intentional which would mean very blatant trying to hurt someone then ejection, but most we see would be the penalty box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [186]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 180
Joined: 10/11/13
|
Re: My single biggest complaint with targeting.
Sep 29, 2021, 2:55 PM
|
|
have a penalty box like hockey not ejections, that ruins the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
