»
Topic: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??
Replies: 30   Last Post: Jan 14, 2021, 4:15 PM by: Lakedude®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 30  

What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 13, 2021, 10:46 PM
 

When a player like Skalski gets tossed, it is pretty much a 200 yard penalty. Two scores.

Targeting was originally put in place to prevent 'launching' and accordingly launching has been eradicated from the game, and rightfully so. I haven't seen a launch in 5 years.

As currently defined, 'targeting' simply happens too quickly for the offending player to have any other choice. Do you think somebody would wllingly get tossed from at least one half of a game?? What can be done to resolve this issue? One of these days a team is going to lose an important game because one of their game changers got tossed.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??

[2]
Posted: Jan 13, 2021, 10:57 PM
 

I’m pretty sure targeting fouls have already influenced games. If I were king, I would raise the threshold but keep the option of the ejection. I would have lowering and tackling with the crown of the helmet (Skalski) as a 15 yd penalty no ejection, but egregious launching to create helmet to helmet contact (several Alabama players that are never called for it in years past) would still result in ejection from that game only. To me it has never made sense that a penalty can last two games.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 13, 2021, 11:45 PM
 

The sad thing is more targeting calls are missed, especially in the NFL, and are not even called.

2021 orange level member link


Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 13, 2021, 11:51 PM
 

I dont think their rule is thee same, In college it assumes the D can hit anywhere they want. O players move, get hit by others and lower their heads. O guy never gets called for using the helmet

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-74tiger.jpg link

But let's get rid of rule where offensive player can stiff a

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 1:33 AM
 

To the face.Applies to hands to face rule.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 9:35 AM
 

What’s the nfl?

2021 purple level member link

I agree to reduce the penalty on the ones


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 8:07 AM
 

where there is no obvious intent to spear and injure the other player.
Still would be subjective...but hopefully a little common sense could be applied.

I think many people do not realize (somehow including people who are in charge) how fast everything happens on the field, and sometimes it is just nearly impossible to avoid the helmet-to-helmet (or helmet to ribs, etc.) contact. It’s just fast guys out there flying around playing football.

The current enforcement of the rule is just bad in so many cases. Those in charge of college athletics claim to be all for the “student-athlete experience.” Well... how do they feel about a guy working his whole life to get in a championship game...and then he gets disqualified because his helmet got in the wrong place at the wrong time?

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

They need to stick with the intent of the current rule,

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2021, 11:46 PM
 

which is meant to penalize intent, which is why it is called "targeting". Merriam-Webster defines "Target"(verb) as: to make a target of. You can't make a target of something by accident, if you target something, it means, by definition, you are intentionally, knowingly making that thing a target. Otherwise, it's not targeting. In the targeting rule itself, in the NCAA Football Rules, Targeting is defined as "'Targeting' means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact ...". So, to target, by rule, a player must take aim. THERE MUST BE INTENT. Things like launching and lowering the helmet are indicators of targeting, but do not necessarily mean targeting occurred. A player, as Skalski did against Ohio State (and as many other players do all of the time) may very well lower a shoulder to deliver a hit, thereby lowering the helmet at the same time, without any intent of delivering a blow with the helmet or "taking aim" as the rule requires. Admitedly, it's a tough rule to enforce, to determine what a player's intentions were. That's why it has to be obvious, egregious, and indisputable, that the player took aim and intentionally targeted the opponnent. Right now, refs just ignore the intent part, and bail on the safe side.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Make the player sit out a series if no launch


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 12:42 AM
 

If second penalty then do the rest of game.

2021 white level member link



"The one who thinks we can and the one who thinks we can't are both right! Which one are you, son? Which one are you, son?"


15 yard penalty,out of game and the following possession


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 1:31 AM
 

As well.Get 2 in same game then old rules apply

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??

[3]
Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 2:13 AM
 

Why not make it a 30 yard penalty;15 for "targeting" and an additional 15 for excessive force, but the player stays in the game.
A second such penalty then could result in that player being ejected for the remainder of "that" game only.
Just a thought.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 6:09 AM
 

I totally agree with your idea. I believe 2 targeting calls one against ND the other against OSU cost Clemson a win in the Sugar Bowl. IMO the offense got a little rattled because our defense was out of sink. The offense I believe put to much pressure on themselves thinking that they had to win the game because of Nolan Turner’s absence in the first half and Jamie Skalski in the 2nd half. Just enough to disrupt our defense off in a key game.

Targeting rule punishment is excessive. You can yank a guy by the face mask, kick him when is is down on the ground, even poke him in the eye and it’s only 15 yards.

When you get caught for targeting , some I believe are to be unavoidable. The speed of the game has become faster. During the play a defensive player may have started his tackling motion during that time the offensive player in just a second or two could have changed the position of his body which could result in an unavoidable targeting penalty by the defensive player.

We know the penalty usually stretches across 2 games which in IMO has already changed the outcome of more than 1 game. It may have even resulted in the firing of coaches.

The harshest part of the targeting penalty is the punishment. Some players have ended their college careers sitting out time for targeting.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 6:53 AM
 

Defense sucked with Skalski in there in the first half - wasn’t lined up and ready, switching sides, DBs lost in coverage and D line stunts/slants created gaping cutback lanes our LBs never shut down. Defense sucked in second half without Skalski in there for many of the same reasons. They could have hung 50 on us if they wanted. 640 yards is not the result of one player or position.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 7:54 AM
 

Maybe the defense was off without Nolan Turner call plays for the backfield. I do not believe you are hiding Scalski after the great season he had and the fact that he was recovering from surgery. You are judging him on 1 game. ??? Wow Glad you are not the AD. Dabo would never have been hired.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 1:42 PM
 

I don't think he was disrespecting Skalski with his post. He was only saying that our defense was already having a tough time making stops before Skalski was out.

We had already given up 21 points, and 300 yards at the time the penalty was called on Skalski. Even had no penalty been called on that play Ohio State would've had a 4th and 2 at our 19 yard line with a chance to either attempt a FG to go up 24-14, or attempted to go for it. The penalty on Skalski came with 5:57 left in the 2nd quarter btw meaning we had given up 300 yards in just over 24 minutes of play. That was only Ohio State's 5th drive of the game btw.

I'm sure missing Nolan Turner didn't help things during that time, but if missing just 1 player resulted in us giving up a touchdown on 3 of the first 4 series of the game while driving down to our 19 yard line on their 5th drive then we obviously had other issues on defense as well.

It's just hard for me to blame giving up 49 points and over 600 yards on missing 1 player for the 1st half, and another player for the final 2.5 quarters. Had we lost a closer game, like say our offense players better and we lose 49-45 or something then I could see an argument for saying our defense finds a way to win the game for us with those 2 guys playing the full game. It's completely different though when we lose by 21 points in a game we trailed by as many as 28 points to say having those two guys play the full game would have resulted in us winning.

2021 white level member link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 6:23 AM
 

Keep it as is and move on. No solution is needed.

2021 white level member link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 1:09 PM
 

Agreed, the rule is not perfect but its as good as can be, I'd leave it alone.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 7:20 AM
 

The question I have is what was the rule intended to change? If I’m not mistaken, the intent of the rule was to reduce head a neck injuries to defenseless ball carriers in particular as well as defenders delivering the blow.

I’d like to see the data. In the ____ years since the inception of the rule, has the head and neck injury rate gone down vs the previous ____ years?

If yes then minor adjustments to the rule as suggested in some of the previous posts.

If no. Major adjustments are needed.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 1:11 PM
 

You're ignoring the long-term effects of repeated head strikes the rule is designed to minimize.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 8:19 AM
 

Take the helmets from the players, and just do away with the targeting call!!!

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 8:23 AM
 

Get rid of it.

2021 white level member link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 8:25 AM
 

This is pretty quick solution. You have two levels of targeting such a yellow card and red card in soccer. Targeting is already a call left up to the interpretation of the referees anyway.15 yards but stay in the game would like Skalski who lowered his head, but the runner spun into him, obviously resulting in accidental targeting. 15 yards and expulsion for something egregious like de-cleating a guy over the middle of the field, blind side hits, things of that nature. I know that would lead to interpretation by the referees, but the call already has that anyway.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 8:27 AM
 

Removing discretion from officiating has made it worse. Intent matters, and with a blanket rule to be enforced guys are getting thrown out all the time. Make it a 15 yard penalty with the discretion to eject a player if harmful intent to hurt is seen. This doesn't mean hard hits, this means the spearing launching and such.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 1:07 PM
 

How does a ref "see" intent? Having officials speculate as to what may have been going on in the tackler's mind at the time of the offense hardly seems like it will make this better.

link

I was taught 40+ years ago keep eyes up....


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 8:34 AM
 

Never hit with the top of the head.


That might be a start.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 12:49 PM
 

1st offense 30 yd - likely results in pts. Player is shamed by team.
2nd offense 30 yd +ejection rules as current.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 1:12 PM
 

as has been stated repeatedly, skalski engaged in a textbook definition of targeting on the hit. He's extremely lucky he didn't break his own neck spearing the opponent.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 1:50 PM
 

I'm not sure if the rule itself needs changing or not, but I do wish they'd stop making players miss the 1st half of the next game if they happen to get a targeting call in the 2nd half. I imagine they put that in place to prevent frustrated defensive players from targeting players late in a game they're losing, but a player forgetting to raise his helmet on a bang bang play in the 4th quarter shouldn't impact the outcome of a different game.

2021 white level member link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 3:33 PM
 

Drop it. We got by without for 100 years or so.

link

Re: What's the solution to the targeting penalty??


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 4:10 PM
 

I agree that launching to initiate head contact with the crown of the defenders was what this rule was intended to stop and now it has morphed into something it was never intended to do. We now see too many 'good' football hits get flagged for targeting, even more of the defender's shoulder pads contacted the opponent than his helmet did.

I don't think the rule ever goes away, but I wish they would modify the suspension. If the penalty occurs in the second half, just suspend the player for the rest of the game. The next opponent on your schedule should not get the benefit from a penalty that didn't occur against them.

link

Yellow card!


Posted: Jan 14, 2021, 4:15 PM
 

:)

2021 white level member link

Replies: 30  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: FOR SALE : 2 season tickets. North Lower Deck Section UO Row L, Odd numbered seats near aisle. 45 Ya...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
2348 people have read this post