|
The targeting rule - scrap it, rename it, redefine it.
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 3,551
|
Orange Blooded [3244]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2982
Joined: 8/26/99
|
The targeting rule - scrap it, rename it, redefine it.
Sep 18, 2017, 1:57 PM
|
|
The NCAA needs to completely start over with the "targeting" rule. The language of the rule is vague, and there is no universal interpretation among officials as to what is or isn't "targeting."
I use the term "targeting" very loosely. This rule needs a different name because the word "targeting" itself implies intent. Yet the flag is thrown regardless of intent (or lack thereof - see Tanner Muse...there would not have been a flag if L. Jackson hadn't lowered his head). If I target you, then I have you in my crosshairs and you're about to eat my lead. That is the embodiment of intent. Most officials (I say "most" because again, there is no universal interpretation of the rule) throw the flag based on contact, not intent. So there is built-in uncertainty on the legitimacy of the call by its name alone.
The NCAA needs to remove the "targeting" penalty until they've had ample time to hash it out and get it right. And then name it something else unless they decide it IS about intent. I'm all for protecting players. I have no problem that the NCAA wants to enact protective rules.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3244]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2982
Joined: 8/26/99
|
Continuing....
Sep 18, 2017, 2:01 PM
|
|
Sorry guys....
The NCAA needs to remove the "targeting" penalty until they've had ample time to hash it out and get it right. And then name it something else unless they decide it IS about intent. I'm all for protecting players. I have no problem that the NCAA wants to enact protective rules. But they need to do it in ways that protect the game by evening the playing field, especially when it comes to potentially game-changing ejections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20945]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10175
Joined: 9/9/04
|
Re: The targeting rule - scrap it, rename it, redefine it.
Sep 18, 2017, 2:04 PM
|
|
Subjective as it may be, I'll support it in favor of ruining a person's life.
We've been on both sides of that call. And unfortunately we've been on the losing side more often because our players are coached correctly.
But again, I'm okay with "better safe than sorry."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93650]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95406
Joined: 12/25/09
|
No, it's a good rule and as written as well...
Sep 18, 2017, 2:05 PM
|
|
as bureaucrats can write. The officials crew should be fined for missing calls that are in the rules book for player safety. That should include the officials in the booth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19610]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16899
Joined: 9/5/02
|
No. It pains me to say this, but I think it is time to have
Sep 18, 2017, 2:35 PM
|
|
a severity scale like they used to with facemask penalties and actually let the review crew use discretion in regards to intent.
There should be an incidental targeting and a flagrant targeting. Granted, that leaves a bit of ambiguity but in all honesty you can usually discern one type from the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Remember when Stephone Anthony got called for targeting when
Sep 18, 2017, 2:42 PM
|
|
he bumped face masks with a guy as he pushed him out of bounds?
Ridiculous!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16774]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/1/14
|
Re: No. It pains me to say this, but I think it is time to have
Sep 18, 2017, 3:05 PM
[ in reply to No. It pains me to say this, but I think it is time to have ] |
|
Tigersense...you nicely placed parameters around this issue; i.e., incidental versus flagrant. All too often, the player being tackled is the one that draws the act into targeting. There's no way Muse was targeting Jackson...any reasonable could see that.
Regarding penalties to protect players...those only work if they're called. DW4 and MW7 can attest to that. A penalty won't prevent injuries, but, I'll say this. If there is a flagrant targeting penalty, it should include the following game, too. It should be such that only the incidental incidents are generally seen and, furthermore, perhaps a second 'incidental' in a season could carry the ejection, similar to accumulate 'cautions' in the 'global football game'. I don't care for 'one size-fits all'...cause it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [37023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16328
Joined: 12/15/08
|
There needs to be two rules/two different penalties
Sep 18, 2017, 2:08 PM
|
|
What Muse did was spearing. He led with the crown of his helmet which has always been a penalty. If they want to eject a player that is when they need to look at the play as a whole and see if there is anything in the play that shows it was meant to hurt another player.
In Muse's defense Lamar was falling and fell into the hit. I would have been fine with spearing being called. Unfortunately they have tied the two together which in most cases the review only looks at did the player launch himself or lead with the crown of the helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60215]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42553
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [663]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 282
Joined: 7/20/99
|
Re: The targeting rule - scrap it, rename it, redefine it.
Sep 18, 2017, 2:18 PM
|
|
I agree with renaming it, but disagree with removing it.
I also don't like the way players are kicked off the filed for "targeting" as if they are a criminal. If there is clear intent or if it is clearly flagrant, then yes, kick them out of the game, have a follow-up review, suspend for future games, etc. But in the case of a foul like Tanner Muse's Saturday, I think there should be a 15 yard penalty, but he's allowed to stay in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3244]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2982
Joined: 8/26/99
|
Re: The targeting rule - scrap it, rename it, redefine it.
Sep 18, 2017, 2:23 PM
|
|
I didn't say remove it permanently. There needs to be a rule or series of rules to protect players, for sure. But don't let bad rules remain. As it stands right now, the targeting rule is a bad rule. Remove it and replace it with something that makes more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Enforce it equitably !!
Sep 18, 2017, 2:39 PM
|
|
The penalty for being called for "targeting" is about as heavy as it gets for an in-game indiscretion.
Getting a 15 yard penalty, plus ejection, plus disqualification for the next half of play. That's HUGE!!
Don't get me wrong. The intention of the rule is admirable.
There needs to be a rule protecting players.
But, the rule is not equitably enforced and sometimes enforcement is blatantly inequitable.
The enforcement of the rule needs to improve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 785
Joined: 11/13/16
|
Re: Enforce it equitably !!
Sep 18, 2017, 2:50 PM
|
|
I totally agree with the enforcing it equitably notion. Case in point - running backs who lower their head and ram into defensive players. Same danger, same injuries - but somehow holding a football while doing it excuses that player's offense. In regards to enforcing it, I think it needs to be a rule and one that carries a stiff penalty. But one strike you're out is too strict. See JJ Watt's tweet about it - its just not fair.
https://twitter.com/JJWatt/status/909219275495309312
I think first offense should be like fighting - 15 yds, first warning. Any other personal foul after that (targeting, fighting, etc) THEN the ejection rule kicks in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2839]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4656
Joined: 1/7/12
|
Re: The targeting rule - scrap it, rename it, redefine it.
Sep 18, 2017, 2:46 PM
|
|
It could even just be split in 2.
A personal foul "helmet to helmet" penalty that could be intentional or not, 15 yard penalty no ejection, and reviewable.
And then a "launching" penalty or something along those lines for an egregious targeting call where the guy actually does look like he's trying to hurt a player which could result in 15 yards and disqualification for the rest of the game. This would be for when a player leaves his feet or actually leads with his helmet and not the shoulders pads or forearm to the "head or neck area" that refs love to call. The whole carryover rule is nonsense in my mind but it makes sense so as to not turn the last 5 minutes of the games into the wild west.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6223]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4310
Joined: 6/23/17
|
Re: The targeting rule - scrap it, rename it, redefine it.
Sep 18, 2017, 3:35 PM
|
|
I agree with you, sounds like a reasonable rule change. I also, agree it's frustrating when it's not called consistently.
However, although the runner lowered his head, Muse used the crown of his helmet (which is also dangerous to the tackler) but he also launched himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 3,551
|
|
|
|
50
