|
Replies: 17
| visibility 2204
|
Heisman Winner [85636]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 38755
Joined: 2003
|
I suggest this change to the Targeting penalty. Make it a two stage penalty.
4
Jan 3, 2025, 11:27 AM
|
|
Targeting One: "Inadvertent" helmet to helmet contact, like we see on a lot of plays. This one would be a 15 yarder, but no ejection.
Targeting Two: Leading with the crown of the helmet, intentional launch, etc. This one would be a TWENTY FIVE yard penalty, with ejection. That would be enough of a deterrent for coaches to actually try and reel that type of play in. Whereas nowadays, you mostly see coaches patting their players on the head after they get ejected, if that player just cost them a quarter of the field, could be different.
|
|
|
|
 |
Offensive Star [332]
TigerPulse: 86%
15
|
Re: I suggest thing change to the Targeting penalty. Make it a two stage penalty.
1
Jan 3, 2025, 11:52 AM
|
|
Make it simpler: Face mask up, no targeting; face mask down, targeting. Reviews would take seconds. Intent is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4821]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: I suggest thing change to the Targeting penalty. Make it a two stage penalty.
3
Jan 3, 2025, 12:03 PM
|
|
I hate the ejection rule. Enforce the yards but don’t eject. So stupid
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2221]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: I suggest thing change to the Targeting penalty. Make it a two stage penalty.
2
Jan 3, 2025, 1:55 PM
|
|
I hate the ejection rule when it occurs in the second half and the player has to sit out the first half of the next game. Your next opponent should not benefit from a penalty that occurred in the previous game. If you keep the ejection rule in, it should only apply to the remainder of the game you are playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [778]
TigerPulse: 92%
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [708]
TigerPulse: 100%
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24205]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 24529
Joined: 2003
|
We should reduce it.
8
8
Jan 3, 2025, 12:04 PM
|
|
The only targeting should be intentional and especially dangerous. None of this incidental stuff. Helmet to helmet is impossible to avoid in many cases. Without a launch or a flagrant crown of the helmet there should be no penalty.
If a defender's facemask initiates contact it should not be a penalty.
Targeting got WAY too big. We need to reign it in.
No more ejections unless it is absolutely flagrant. We created a monster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4821]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: We should reduce it.
Jan 3, 2025, 12:06 PM
|
|
Agree!! If it’s flagrant, that’s different. Then again with our luck, the refs would still eject anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [332]
TigerPulse: 86%
15
|
Re: We should reduce it.
Jan 3, 2025, 1:31 PM
[ in reply to We should reduce it. ] |
|
Which is why my rule change is easy. Make it very clear that if you hit someone with the crown of the helmet, it's dangerous, flagrant, etc., you will be ejected. There's no more interpretation. It's cut and dried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1714]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: We should reduce it.
Jan 3, 2025, 1:49 PM
[ in reply to We should reduce it. ] |
|
I agree. But I also find it interesting that RB's like Skattebo and Jaunty, both of whom I have seen, lower their head and deliberately (intentionally if you will) try to run through guys. But the intention of the offensive player is not to hit anyone, but to gain as many yards as possible. While the defensive player's intent is to hit him and to stop him. Yet, there is no offensive targeting should they go helmet to helmet. The penalty resides on the defensive side. The defender, by definition, is the one that initiates the contact. Sometimes.
It's a dangerous game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [332]
TigerPulse: 86%
15
|
Re: We should reduce it.
1
Jan 3, 2025, 2:52 PM
|
|
My rule would apply both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13991]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 12438
Joined: 2000
|
Targeting is a nebulous call and it will remain that way
1
Jan 3, 2025, 12:09 PM
|
|
it helps by allowing the officiating crew to call it as needed to keep SEC teams in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5643]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
It doesnt fix it. it wilL STILL be subjective...
1
Jan 3, 2025, 12:28 PM
|
|
...the whole problem is its not applied the same in any game. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT IS. We ALL saw clear targeting at the end of the ASU TX game. There are referees (like Gene Sterritore) all over twitter saying that was targeting according to the rule, but the replay officials said it wasnt????
Its either corruption or an impossible rule to enforce. Just get rid of it. Make it a personal foul for any helmet contact and move on. I think the ejection thing is what twists up refs because its so significant to the team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20842]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 14639
Joined: 2009
|
There's already a 2-strike process for Unsportsmanlike Conduct -
Jan 3, 2025, 12:45 PM
|
|
treat targeting the same. If it's a cheap, blatant, maybe late, full crown kill shot - go ahead and flagrant that up and toss 'em. A compromise could be stretching the two strikes out over two games - refs wouldn't necessarily know where a player was in that process so maybe less hesitant to pull the trigger and keep calls more consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [332]
TigerPulse: 86%
15
|
Re: There's already a 2-strike process for Unsportsmanlike Conduct -
Jan 3, 2025, 1:33 PM
|
|
Again, face mask up, no penalty. Face mask down, targeting, ejected. Things like "kill shot," "blatant," "cheap" leave room for interpretation. We need less interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12417]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
|
I like that interpretation, Skalskis hit on CJ Stroud is an example
Jan 3, 2025, 12:51 PM
|
|
Of inadvertent. Stroud was headed straight for Skalski (face to face).
Stroud planted his foot perpendicular to Skalski and tried to do a spin move.
Skalski hit him in the back after Stroud spun into him. Should not have been a penalty at all, but if you’re going to apply to targeting then do the 15 yard variety with no ejection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2582]
TigerPulse: 91%
32
|
Officiating is tough (speaking from experience), how do you judge intention?
Jan 3, 2025, 1:39 PM
|
|
How do you know it wasn't intentional?
Judgement calls are difficult.
Leading with the facemask can be as bad. NFHS (high school) rule book classifies that as face-tackling, PF 15-yards. However, unlike college, NFHS penalties do not include an ejection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102348]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98907
Joined: 2009
|
Leading with the facemask is taught to protect the tackler.
Jan 3, 2025, 1:44 PM
|
|
If your head is up then your shoulders and chest are also up. It saves kids from neck injuries which result from leading with the crown of their helmets.
I know, I only got two plays my first year of football and entered the portal after our bowl game. I'm still in the portal after waiting 60 years to receive an offer from Clemson. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 17
| visibility 2204
|
|
|
50
