|
Replies: 16
| visibility 6
|
CU Guru [1955]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Targeting Rules need adjusting
Oct 8, 2019, 3:41 AM
|
|
The textbook argument for modifying the targeting rules happened in the Pitt/Duke game Saturday.
Pitt safety Paris Ford was ejected after a hit on Duke receiver Bracey - some 2 min to go in the game. Duke QB Harris hit receiver Bracey on a quick 10-yard pass. A bang-bang play where safety Ford hit Bracey immediately with his shoulder (not helmet), but because Bracey lowered his head right before the Paris' hit, contact occurred in the "head/neck area." According to rules, that's still targeting.
If anything, Bracey lowering HIS head before contact was more of a launch on his part than any targeting Ford was ejected for. What is a safety running hard to stop Bracey supposed to do if the point of contact was due to Bracey lowering himself in a millisecond just before contact? There was nothing Ford could have done to change his area of contact with Bracey.
Most want to eliminate chances for serious injury, but this particular rule gives a defender little chance to make what should be a "no fault" call. Since Bracey lowered himself so quickly, if anything, Bracey was more guilty than Ford.
In cases like this, there should be a rule change to account for a "no fault" hit the defender can't avoid. Safeties like Ford currently are in a no-win situation.
This was likely a "correct call" going by the existing rules - but a change is needed for plays like this. There was really nothing Ford could have done differently.
|
|
|
|
 |
Ultimate Tiger [34756]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 24065
Joined: 2003
|
The only way to do this is to make offensive targeting
Oct 8, 2019, 4:25 AM
|
|
a bigger penalty. If the replay confirms the offensive player lowered his head first then instead of 15 yards and an ejection, it's a turnover at the spot of the infraction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11484]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
Re: The only way to do this is to make offensive targeting
Oct 8, 2019, 10:01 AM
|
|
The problem with your suggestion is that it would have changed nothing in the play he mentioned.
The offensive player would not have been targeting because he did not hit with his head. The offensive player got hit in the head by the defensive player's shoulder.
The offensive player lowered his head, like many do, to protect himself and the ball before contact.
The problem with the rule was that when the offensive player attempted to protect himself and the ball, it took away the "hitting zone" for the defensive player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3666]
TigerPulse: 96%
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17831]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
|
Re: Targeting Rules need adjusting
Oct 8, 2019, 6:05 AM
|
|
I agree with you. The rules need to be changed. The targeting rule is one of the worst rule in college football. What makes the rule so bad is the officials on the field make the wrong call and the replay official is just as bad. Either the replay official is trying to protect his officials on the field or they just suck!
Adding additional yardage is not going to change bad calls. Officials need to be more educated on the rules and to watch targeting call that they got wrong. They should have to study video every week. They should be graded every week on their targeting calls. If they get it wrong they should be warned the first time then after the next missed call official should suspended for 1 game without pay then after that a multiple game suspension without pay. This includes the replay officials too.
Missed calls IMO have increased as technology has advanced. Plus on some of the simplest calls they take 4 or 5 mins. ( Maybe the extra time is so they can show several more commercials.)
During a play the offensive player can change his body’s direction so it looks like the defensive player looks like his hit is targeting. To me those are where a lot of incorrect calls are made.
Targeting and PI seem to be the most missed calls in football. Also, my second opinion is the length of punishment. IMO the player should be suspended for exactly 1/2 of the game. So if he is suspend in the first quarter he should be able to come in the 4th quarter. You can always adjust your the suspension time. His punishment should not go into the next week.
Message was edited by: wueagle86®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29875]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Agree with you on two counts.
Oct 8, 2019, 6:32 AM
|
|
1. The rule says it is illegal for an offensive player to lower his helmet, but it is never called that way. If the offensive player "changes his pad level" (which is just a fancy way to say "lowers his helmet") refs never hold him accountable for the contact to the helmet.
2. Players are told "lead with your shoulder pads." Watch any tackle you want. When you "lead with your shoulder pads, you lower them. When you lower your shoulder pads, you lower your helmet. If you lower your helmet while the ball carrier is also "leading with his shoulder pads" his helmet also lowers. Often that results in helmet to helmet contact. Defender, although he did everything he was taught to do, and encouraged to do, is called for targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: Targeting Rules need adjusting
Oct 8, 2019, 7:08 AM
|
|
Every time I re-watched that play, it was NOT targeting IMO. They had to stretch the rules to make that call stick. Worst call of the day IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [108298]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 70306
Joined: 2002
|
I say toss it totally.
Oct 8, 2019, 7:58 AM
|
|
Along with the horse collar. And enforce the old oline rules of no grabbing period.
Just three rules I dont like. And I know they'll never go away.
The oline rule change is why you see scores regularly in the 30s and 40s today and for years now.
Rare is the game today where neither team breaks 20 points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [311]
TigerPulse: 100%
15
|
Re: I say toss it totally.
Oct 8, 2019, 8:27 AM
|
|
If this garbage continues the rules need to allow them to wear skirts and dresses and an Easter bonnet. They can carry the ball in a large purse.
This targeting is garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5074]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: I say toss it totally.
Oct 8, 2019, 10:38 AM
|
|
I get that with the rule we sometimes get some questionable flags thrown, but the basic principle of the rule is a good one, and has nothing to do with playing soft football. There's nothing more manly about driving your helmet into someone, especially not launching your helmet into the helmet of another player.
Yeah, there's always going to be injuries in football, and that will still include head injuries. That shouldn't mean though that the players shouldn't be taught to avoid head contact as much as possible. Our own coaches seem to do a great job in teaching this since it doesn't seem as if we've had more than a few in any season since the rule was initiated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [311]
TigerPulse: 100%
15
|
Re: I say toss it totally.
Oct 8, 2019, 12:11 PM
[ in reply to I say toss it totally. ] |
|
I agree if the rules committee continues to woosify college football it will never recover.
The alternative will be flag football. Who will pay to watch then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14588]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23653
Joined: 2004
|
The rules are always going to err on the side of caution now
Oct 8, 2019, 8:40 AM
|
|
and targeting rule will never become more lax, if anything it will become more strict over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [263]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
Re: Targeting Rules need adjusting
Oct 8, 2019, 10:08 AM
|
|
I've always been an advocate of having two different targeting calls..."regular" (just a 15 yard penalty, no ejection) and flagrant targeting (15 yd + standard ejection rule applied). Two "regular" targeting penalties in the same game would result in ejection (excuse the soccer reference but similar to two yellow cards = a red card). I'm sure they take enough looks at the review since all targeting penalties are reviewed and they would be able to determine if it warrants the flagrant type or regular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23994]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 10556
Joined: 2017
|
The rule needed to be changed ever since Gallman
Oct 8, 2019, 10:41 AM
|
|
got knocked out of the NC State game in 2016. Text book targeting that wasn't reviewed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2882]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: Targeting Rules need adjusting
Oct 8, 2019, 11:45 AM
|
|
I saw this in another game as well. The defender went after the receivers midsection but the receiver started to fall. By the time the receiver started to fall the defender was already close enough that he couldn't change direction. The contact happened less than 3 feet from the ground. Also, if they are going to stop play for these types of plays they need to also stop it for the call that eventually gave Oklahoma a TD this past week on a bad late hit call on Hurts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5643]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
I think the SEC is getting it right...at the UGA UT game
Oct 8, 2019, 12:20 PM
|
|
whenever there was helmet/head/neck contact the ref flagged it for targeting. replay review (correctly) overturned two calls that I saw. players were protected, no one got tossed unnecessarily.
i say better replay review is the key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3159]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
This doesn't solve everything, but....
Oct 9, 2019, 2:17 PM
|
|
I think that each targeting call should be sent to the "league office" and reviewed by officials not at the actual game.
I guess I feel like the Pitt player should be able at this point to have the call from the game "appealed" and it be declared that he can play in the first half of the next game.
I know they replay it at that moment.....but I wonder if they had a little more time with it, that they might re-think it.
It doesn't help with first half targeting calls (unless they can do this sort of thing at halftime).
But to me the worst ones are the second half calls that leave a guy suspended for half of the next game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 6
|
|
|
50
