Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Prime example of why targeting should not be an immediate
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 4
| visibility 1

Prime example of why targeting should not be an immediate


Nov 23, 2018, 9:03 PM

ejection. Way too subjective.

Obviously, that should've been a 15 yd penalty and a 1st offense warning. Ejection on next play.

Heck, make it a 20 yd penalty. You just can't immediately eject guys on such a subjective call.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Prime example of why targeting should not be an immediate


Nov 24, 2018, 9:04 AM

I agree the targeting rule on paper is a good rule. Any rules for protecting players usually is a good rule. But in an actual game it’s the worst rule and gives officials to much influence in the outcome of a game.

If they are not doing now it each conference should have conference officials watching games where targeting was called or coaches file formal complaints about officials calls. The officials on the field and replay officials should in writing have to briefly describe why they considered it targeting calls or other big calls that had an influence on the outcome of any college game. Both schools AD should receive a copy of that officials response along with a written response form the conference office and the NCAA’s office. Fans should also be made aware when an official is disciplined and for what reasons.

All of the above may be happening but if it is I have never heard much about it. With betting now legal it’s not that difficult for an official to manipulate the outcome of a game or the point spread.

IMO even with instant replay, officials are still missing way to many big game changing calls.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Prime example of why targeting should not be an immediate


Nov 24, 2018, 9:15 AM

I agree. They have given the refs way too much power being able to eject players. They should make it a personal foul and ejection ONLY if it is flagrant with "launching" involved. These ejections where incidental helmet to helmet contact is made is ridiculous and has gotten out of hand.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Prime example of why targeting should not be an immediate


Nov 24, 2018, 10:37 AM [ in reply to Re: Prime example of why targeting should not be an immediate ]

I may be wrong about this, but replay officials can reverse targetting calls, and I think targetting can be called outright from the replay booth.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Prime example of why targeting should not be an immediate


Nov 24, 2018, 9:25 AM

I agree, the so called "Targeting Rule" is a joke! It is not enforced fairly across the board. This comes from the way it is written. Game after game officials are looking at the hit and don't call clearly targeting penalties and on the other hand call penalties that clearly are not targeting. I am sure you all remember our player being called for targeting because his hand hit the other players helmet.

The targeting rule needs to be revisited, rewritten and simplified because it can be a game changer and momentum killer.

Message was edited by: Purple Gunstock 15®


2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Replies: 4
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic