»
Topic: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be
Replies: 38   Last Post: Jan 2, 2021, 7:09 PM by: Tobias27772
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 38  

This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be

emoji_events [5]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:14 AM
 

"decrimininalized". By that, I mean, the penalty as it stands is too great. And, although there are clearly different "levels" of targeting hits, under the current rule the officials have no leeway to try and judge intent or circumstances. I would like to see it changed as this:

1) "Incidental" targeting should just be a 15 yard penalty, no ejection. We have all seen these plays, where the defensive player basically remains in his tackling plane, and the offensive guy lowers the head, and suddenly you have a helmet to helmet hit, through no fault of the defensive player. It is still dangerous, and thus the penalty.

2) "With intent" targeting. This should be a 30 yard penalty, with an ejection. We have all also seen this type of play, where the defensive guy is going out of his way to deliver a knockout blow, literally trying to decleat the opposition and remove them from the game. I reference D.J Swearinger as poster boy for this type.

3) "Tweener" Targeting. Give the officials some leeway on questionable calls, with a warning to the player for the first offense, and ejection for the second offense. (I would have put Skalski's hit on Fields last night in this category. Jamie had gotten as low as he humanly could on the tackle and still remain above ground.)

BUTT, and this is a big BUTT: In NO case should a player have to miss part of the next game. The penalty should only apply to the game being played at the time. That "future" penalty crap has never sat well with me.

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

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be

[2]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:17 AM
 

The next game prevents cheap shots late in games. It’s necessary.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg link

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Disagree. It is too much a "luck of the draw" thing. You

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:19 AM
 

could target someone on the last play of the first half, and only miss the second half of that game. Move that hit forward into the first play of the second half, and the player has to essentially sit out an entire game.

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

please take note of a proper form tackle that is

[4]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:23 AM
 

not targeting. Notice how he lifts his helmet and leads with his facemask and contact his made with his shoulder. The idea is to prevent compressive spinal injuries. It has been discussed ad nauseam in here. Skalski knew the rules, and decided to break them anyway.





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

You picked a terrible clip to try and make your point. Our

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:26 AM
 

guy's facemask was pointing DIRECTLY at the ground, just like Skalski's was, until AFTER he hit Ryan in the chest. Skalski was so low making that tackle, if he had tried to turn his head upward as you suggest, they would have CALLED that a launch, and he would still have been gone.

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

Re: You picked a terrible clip to try and make your point. Our


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:29 AM
 

I see no crown of the helmet contact, he lead with is facemask and his right shoulder. it is clear as day. Ryan is not a defenseless player, he could have tucked and run. This is a legal tackle.

Had he been sitting stationary in the pocket and released the ball before Dunham initiated his tackle, you can make an argument for launching and targeting.


Message was edited by: Tigerbalm1®

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

Re: You picked a terrible clip to try and make your point. Our


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:30 PM
 


I see no crown of the helmet contact, he lead with is facemask and his right shoulder. it is clear as day. Ryan is not a defenseless player, he could have tucked and run. This is a legal tackle.

Had he been sitting stationary in the pocket and released the ball before Dunham initiated his tackle, you can make an argument for launching and targeting.


Message was edited by: Tigerbalm1®



If you do not see the initial contact as the crown of the helmet, then you have no idea what you are looking at. He turned his head up after contact.

link

Re: You picked a terrible clip to try and make your point. Our


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:32 PM
 

I see him planting his facemask between his numbers driving through matt ryan with his shoulder. That is show they are taught.

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

Re: You picked a terrible clip to try and make your point. Our


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:42 PM
 

That never gets old. The greatest hit of all time, BUT I think targeting gets called on that in today’s game unfortunately even though we would be pissed at the call.

military_donation.jpg link

Re: You picked a terrible clip to try and make your point. Our


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 1:00 PM
 

While you are correct that you’re supposed to keep your head up and not hit with the crown of the helmet, common sense has to be used when making these type of calls. And anyone that watches the replay knows that fields spun into Skalski‘s helmet. If Fields doesn’t spin at the last second there’s no targeting. There’s no crown of the helmet impact. The officials need to take that into account especially when there’s no head and neck involvement.

No one that has ever played football and that has any common sense would’ve called targeting on that play. That was called targeting simply because of the letter of the law. And everyone knows the rule is written very poorly.

2021 orange level member link

Tbalm was joking, of course, but if Skalski (or Dunham


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 1:00 PM
 

in Tbalm's classic clip) raises his chin "face up" and makes that tackle, it would likely cause severe damage to his neck. It puts the neck in a very weak, unnatural position. That's a huge problem with the rule as it is. It's impossible to lower the shoulder or bend forward without lowering the head, and it's unsafe lower the head beyond a certain point with the face up.

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


Re: please take note of a proper form tackle that is

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:44 AM
 


not targeting. Notice how he lifts his helmet and leads with his facemask and contact his made with his shoulder. The idea is to prevent compressive spinal injuries. It has been discussed ad nauseam in here. Skalski knew the rules, and decided to break them anyway.







Exactly. Skalski hits hard for the sake of hitting hard and injuring a player. He is a dirty player. Had he not been called for targeting on that play I have no doubt he’d have at least 2 more opportunities the rest of the game. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT.

link

There's NO "WE" you twisted, sick puppy... Blow off.***


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:40 PM
 



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

Re: please take note of a proper form tackle that is


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:51 PM
 

If you do not hit hard dude, you are going to get trucked. It is either be the aggressor or you are toast.

military_donation.jpg link

Should be an officials judgement


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:24 AM
 

Call on the flagrancy of the foul. If it was unintentional there should be no foul. You cannot correct unintentional behavior.

link

Should be an officials judgement


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:24 AM
 

Call on the flagrancy of the foul. If it was unintentional there should be no foul. You cannot correct unintentional behavior.

link

Sure you can, the prison system does it all the time. There


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:40 AM
 

are almost no criminals incarcerated who intentionally meant their victims any harm, just ask their lawyers!

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

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:32 AM
 

Instead of an ejection, the offending player should have to run a couple laps on camera around the stadium and then be allowed back.

No one wants to be televised running laps, right?

link

Worse yet, they could make them kiss Lee Corso. Now, THAT

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:37 AM
 

would be a deterrent, except for those of the Francis Marion persuasion maybe.

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

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be

[2]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:36 AM
 

Think people complain about officiating now? Bring in the "tweener" call.

link

There are complaints about most targeting calls now. At


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:38 AM
 

least with these rule changes, the complaints would be more nuanced.

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

Re: There are complaints about most targeting calls now. At

[2]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:42 AM
 

These discussions are rarely nuanced. It’s mainly arguing which way benefits youR team the most.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg link

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Something needs to be done. The calls are so

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:37 AM
 

inconsistent. There is a 50-50% chance that the former ref "Bill" that ESPN uses to consult on targeting will agree with the ref doing the game.

I also agree with the punishment being too harsh. Especially when the game officials have such a hard time agreeing on the correct call.

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

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:38 AM
 

I agree there needs to be more leeway in the rule. These plays are happening so fast and skalski would have never been ejected if fields got up and kept playing. These refs were calling a good game (they were letting them play) but the booth had too much time to look at this in slow motion.

I think it should be 2 categories: malicious and not malicious.

If it's not malicious it should be a 15 yard penalty and no ejection. Nolan Turner in ND, Skalski and Shaun Wade (from last year) should be included in this.

Malicious should include being disqualified for the rest of the game and then a review for potentially more games after that. The UGA hit on Kyle Pitts is a great example of malicious. I wouldn't have an issue with him being out for 2 games.
https://mobile.twitter.com/willmanso/status/1325196809250091008

link

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:44 AM
 

That Georgia idiot hurt his ownself to deliver an illegal "defenseless player" type hit. I don't know when it became fashionable to coach just bouncing off an offensive player as hard as you can as a type of tackling, instead of wrapping them up to take them to the ground, but it sure seems to be the norm these days.

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

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:45 AM
 

That doesn’t even look malicious. The UGA defender was trying to hit him with the shoulder and just mistimed it.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg link

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:46 AM
 

Here are 2 other plays from the game last night that could have been called targeting per the letter of the rule (and I think they would have been called and either player been injured.

Amari Rodgers: forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player.

Trevor Lawrence: this was immediately after the Skalski call, but the player lowered his head and hit trevor with the crown of his helmet. No, Trevor was not defenseless, and no it's doesn't matter that it was in the head. The only reason this is targeting is because the OSU player lead with the crown of his helmet.

ESPN didn't show a replay of either of these plays but if you pause the video at the time of contact you will see they are targeting. And if you played these in slow motion they would clearly be targeting.

link

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:00 PM
 

Trying to attach gifs:

link

That is a brutal hit, but I don't know how you can determine


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:05 PM
 

intent to strike helmet to helmet with the crown, or assign blame. Both players running full speed bending and twisting and adjusting very dynamically. How else was the UGA defender supposed to make that play?

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


Re: That is a brutal hit, but I don't know how you can determine

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:16 PM
 

To me if the defender and receiver are running directly at each other head on, the defender better be sure he's going to put a clean hit on the receiver. This UGA player came in wrecklessly and put both players in danger. A correct way to make this play is how Mario Goodrich did it last night.

link

How? What do you tell defenders, what is the instruction you


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:35 PM
 

give them to prevent this from happening?

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


Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 7:09 PM
 

CU12,

How does a referee decide whether a big hit was malicious - or not ?? In real time ??

link

Intent is already part of the targeting rule.


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 11:59 AM
 

It is assumed that if a player lowers his head, that he is "aiming with intent". That is TOTAL ######## and the whole problem with the rule, and the part that must be changed. Any time a player bends forward, to reach or run or tackle, HE LOWERS HIS HEAD! It's physically impossible not to. This prohibits a classic textbook tackle of lowering the shoulder and wrapping up with the arms. I agree with the intent of the rule - to make players safe and prevent serious head injuries; but as written and implemented it's a terrible rule. It penalizes players who are just playing football and are not playing recklessy or trying to injure.

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


Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:03 PM
 

Well put and laid out 76er. It's way too subjective. I've seen hundreds this year where the one Nolan did was NOT called in other games... But I've seen way more like Skalski hit NOT called than I've seen called.

Call a late hit and penalty but all too often it's either targeting or no flag. The fact we dispute Skalski hit tells me the rule is flawed.
It's gone from helmet to helmet to any hit to where an offensive player can actually induce it.

All that has nothing to do with a team winning or losing. We lost because like LSU game and last night, we got outplayed and outcoached.

link

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:11 PM
 

Targeting came about to help stop concussions. Unless it's a shot to the head it shouldn't be targeting.

military_donation.jpg link

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be

[3]
Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:23 PM
 

You realize you can give yourself a concussion when you hit someone with your helmet, right?

What Skalski did can cause paralysis. The rule is designed to prevent injuries to both parties.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg link

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Marc Buoniconti of the Citadel...


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 1:16 PM
 

...was paralyzed in 1985 after hitting a runner with the crown of his helmet. Darryl Stingley was brutally hit by Jack Tatum who was one of the dirtiest players of all time. Skalski is playing with fire if he thinks it can't happen to him. I hope the Tiger coaches remind him of that...

link

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:49 PM
 

I think this is a popular post actually. There has to be a couple of different levels as all targeting is not recreated equal. Maybe you sit out a half not to what equates to a half.

If there was not really a truly malicious intent ie a DB laying out a defenseless receiver then just do a penalty and a warning. The second offense is ejection. If it happens in the 4th quarter you miss 1st qtr of the next game.

Part of the issue is the offensive players are doing the same thing. I feel like if we are worried about player safety the offensive player needs to be flagged for using his crown as well. Happens all the time. Just ask the DBs that are getting run over.

military_donation.jpg link

Re: This won't be popular, but I think Targeting should be


Posted: Jan 2, 2021, 12:52 PM
 

Targeting does NOT take intent into account because it is too much to ask a ref to decide on intent.

It is for the protection of the players and again plays no part in that protection. Players are taught how to adjust. They have to do this consistently.

link

Replies: 38  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: 4 season tickets in Top Deck on Clemson side. $2360 total. Contact me for full details.

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
3107 people have read this post