»
Topic: Targeting
Replies: 27   Last Post: Jan 14, 2020 10:22 AM by: TigersAndCubs®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 27  

Targeting


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:08 AM
 

So, they said targeting could happen on any part of the opposing team’s body. So how was the helmet that Higgins took to the thigh not targeting then?


worse was the hit to Amari...


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:11 AM
 

Probably personal foul and not targeting, but he was a defenseless player

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-franc1968.jpg


It was. Replay refs were busy celebrating already and missed


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:11 AM
 

It

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Targeting

[3]
Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:25 AM
 

This is why we were bishing about wade getting ejected. Its not because we think it was a bad call, it is because we think the rule is trash and being able to review and call it when it wasnt called on the field is also trash.

Because of how the rule is written, it gives way too harse of penalties for accidental contact made that fall within its regs. And it allows other plays that happen with the same criteria to happen but not get penalized. That hit chasson put on TL in the end was text book targeting. Chausson lead with his crown and LAUNCHED right at his head while nearly all 6'5 of him was standing tall. That hit was 20 times more malicious than the one your guy was ejected for, yet there was no flag and it was not reviewed.

This rule was ment to stop players from "laying out" other players. When that actually happens, the refs and everyone in the stands sees it. Instead of pointing fingers at which fams are the biggest crybabies we should band together and protest a change for this rule bcuz it is ruining CFB.

I understand why they made it, but it needs to be changed to specifically address the problem. The crown of the helmet leading is the dumbest thing i have ever read. Rugby tackles are the safest form of tackling yet it causes players to appear to look down instead of up because they are aiming for the hip/legs instead of the chest/head.

A player can lay someone out by leading with the facemask or shoulder and do just as much damage. Make it to where the flag is only thrown for laying out defenceless players or at the very least get rid of the fking ejection for accidental head to head contact.


Re: Targeting

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:30 AM
 

Maybe you thought it was a bad rule, but most ohio state fans said that wasn't targeting although it obviously was.

Same w/ Skalski's. It is a dumb rule and way too harsh, but a rule is a rule.

Now, where I take exception is that there were at least 3 instances of targeting that were way more obvious than Skalski's and they went uncalled.

It just seemed like every call went against us. The out of bounds, Tee offensive pass interference, Skalski targeting, multiple obvious missed holds, missed targeting on LSU.

Even w/ all of this, it was still a winnable game. Can't go 1 for 11 on 3rd downs against LSU and expect to win.


Re: Targeting


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:39 AM
 

Chase Young should been have been the one ejected. Clothes lining would have done that


Re: Targeting


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:49 AM
 

Well we could also say that if your olineman wasnt shoving his hands 3 feet deep inside chases helmet, the clothes line would not have happened. If you want to turn this thread away from addressing a problem in CFB to a whose refs sucked more pizzing match i am game. But considering neither of us took the trophy home this year, it would kind of be pointless, no?


Re: Targeting


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:08 AM
 

Change the rule, change the wording. But you cant change 0-4! Go Tigers!!!


Re: Targeting


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:14 AM
 

You can rub this years game in my face, but the '16 game doesnt phase me as our offense was hot garbage and had 0 business in the playoff


Re: Targeting


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:11 AM
 

I would listen to the arguement that it was 'ticky tacky' to pull up the replay for the call since it was accidental and wasnt called on the field.. but anyone who says its was a 'bad call' is blind AF.

But that is what the problem is. This rule shouldnt have people arguing about it. It should be used on hits where everyone should say yea that hit was dirty AF


Re: Targeting

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:05 AM
 

I agree that the ejection portion of the rule needs to be reviewed. They move at a speed that I couldn't dream of, and when a lot of the game involves hitting people things happen. It was the correct call, but ejection is way too harsh.


Re: Targeting


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:20 AM
 

100% agree.

15 yard penalty a team can overcome. If i had my choice between keeping wade but losing that 15 yards and losing the fumble touchdown recovery vs losing wade but keeping the 15 yds and the td fumble i would choose keep wade. He was THAT important to our defense.


Most Ohio state fans said it wasn't targeting.


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:38 AM
 

Most Clemson fans said that Skalski DID target by rule. See the difference. Our complaint, not that it would change the outcome, was that by rule the refs missed two maybe three targets by LSU. Inconsistency is the biggest problem with the rule.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg


Re: Most Ohio state fans said it wasn't targeting.


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:41 AM
 

Ehh id say it was a good 1/3 that were saying bad call.. either way, bad rule.


Re: Most Ohio state fans said it wasn't targeting.


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:45 AM
 

And yes our fan base is 2/5 annoying, 2/5 moron, and 1/5 intelligent. Why do you think i am posting here instead of there? I literally got banned for a month from a pay to post site for 1 month because i was the only poster who didnt think JT Barrett walked on water. An opinion that you in '16 and several other teams proved btw.


Re: Most Ohio state fans said it wasn't targeting.


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:47 AM
 

Correction: 1/5 annoying, 1/5 moron, 2/5 both, 1/5 intelligent.


If you thought the Ohio State forum was nuts (pun intended)


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 10:11 AM
 

We should introduce you to the Fantasy Gamecoot Forum. The coots will amaze you from their shear idiocy. I kind of feel bad for OSU because y'all don't have a intrastate rival like we do for all the idiots in the state. Unfortunately for y'all, you get the good, the bad and the idiots for fans. Our in state idiots go to the UofSuC.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg


You want some cheese with that whine? Officiating had VERY

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:29 AM
 

little effect on the outcome of that game. We just got beat by a better team, pure and simple. Had we played absolutely perfect, it might have been close. But, they deserve a lot of credit for our play as well.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: You want some cheese with that whine? Officiating had VERY


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:30 AM
 

It had a lot of effect on the game. The game was still close at the point, and losing a starter when the talent gap is this close makes a big difference.


Re: You want some cheese with that whine? Officiating had VERY


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 8:38 AM
 

Heres the thing you dont realize: granted i havent done the research on your defense matching up vs their O as much as I did ours vs yours.

With the talent gap being this close, each individual matchup between one defender and one offensive player is so critical it would amaze you. Every small detail about this is planned. If we have cbs that can lock down your wrs we can load the box to support vs the run or add pressure to the qb. If we have one bad cb we can put a safety over him to help defend the wr. If we have chase young it gives our other dlinemen 1 on 1 matchups and linebackers a free gap to blitz.

If one of those links falls to injury, or gets ejected for some bs rule. It changes EVERYTHING.


Re: You want some cheese with that whine? Officiating had VERY


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:03 AM
 

To make this more understandable with an example, lets look at Wades ejection. (Using wade because as stated i have researches the matchups and understood what the gameplan was, where as your guy i did not)

You had 4 main weapons of concern for our defense to focus on. Higgens, ross, etienne, and TL. To us the gameplan was to limit big plays by your elite wrs, and allow our front seven to stuff the run with safety support.

Both our field and boundry cbs we were confident in being able to cover higgens and ross with a single high safety to support them. When wade got ejected, it forced us to put a CB in who was nowhere close to wades ability. As pointed out, talent this close is all about matchups, and your staff rightfully identified the mismatch that very next play by targeting Riep.

Because Riep was unable to hold either ross or higgens jockstrap, it FORCED us to dedicate a safety for the sole purpose of babysitting our weak link. This is a safety that could have been used to read trevor lawrence when he took off running, or a safety used to in man coverage vs etienne when he shifted out of the backfield to become a wr or ran out to the flat for a checkdown/screen play. All of a sudden these were open and your offense effectly adjusted to how we used that safety the rest of the game.


I'd like to hear a very clear, consistent explanation of the


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:27 AM
 

difference between

a) targeting (leading with the crown of the helmet) not in the head or neck area, and

b) spearing

To me, they are the same, with the exception that targeting carries an ejection penalty and spearing does not. Is spearing now out of the rule book, having been replaced by targeting?


Re: I'd like to hear a very clear, consistent explanation of the


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:44 AM
 

Interesting look on the NCAA website at rules on blindside block and targeting...clearly Higgins did not blindside block that LSU player...the player was looking at him when he was hit and Higgins did not really do anything other than make contact...they show examples of the rule both ways...the same thing with Skalski...forcable contact leading with the crown of the helment...Skalski led with the shoulder...because you head is on the tackling end you can't rule it out...If that were the case in last nights game LSU would have to play the 3rd string and the locker room would have been full...NCAA has a great group of Utube videos to show how the rules are decided and should be applied...we lost to another team that played physical full contact football on every play...on difference I notice is that the SEC says to #### with the rules and plays hands on football...then lets the officials sort things out...Clemson rarely plays dirty football and when we do we should be flagged...Dabo does not play that way! Interesting thing about the targeting rule is that nothing is said about the targeted player already being brought down...If whatever contact is being dictated by previous contact then it would logically seem that the rule would require malicious contact by the player doing the targeting...if not then take the crown off all helments and see how much trauma you prevent!


Re: I'd like to hear a very clear, consistent explanation of the


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:56 AM
 

They are the same, you are correct. The issue is that rugby tackling has the same approach as spearing, but your head goes of the side of the hip instead of directly into the player.

This becomes a problem because when the offensive player lowers his body to protect himself from the hit, it puts his helmet in the location of where the side of his hip WAS. Thus causing a helmet to helmet collision. Rugby tackling is taught by many defenses as it is a safer and equally effective technique to tackle. It is designed to make the shoulder be the impact point of contact instead of the head.

Would you prefer going face first into someone running towards you 10 times? Our shoulder first 9/10 with one accidental helmet to helmet?

They tackle that way in rugby for a reason. Because they dont have nearly as much protection.


Re: I'd like to hear a very clear, consistent explanation of the


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 9:57 AM
 

They are the same, you are correct. The issue is that rugby tackling has the same approach as spearing, but your head goes of the side of the hip instead of directly into the player.

This becomes a problem because when the offensive player lowers his body to protect himself from the hit, it puts his helmet in the location of where the side of his hip WAS. Thus causing a helmet to helmet collision. Rugby tackling is taught by many defenses as it is a safer and equally effective technique to tackle. It is designed to make the shoulder be the impact point of contact instead of the head.

Would you prefer going face first into someone running towards you 10 times? Our shoulder first 9/10 with one accidental helmet to helmet?

They tackle that way in rugby for a reason. Because they dont have nearly as much protection.


There is no longer a penalty for spearing


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 10:22 AM
 

It's under the targeting rule now.

2020 white level member

It's easy. You lower your head and hit with the crown,


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 10:13 AM
 

it's targeting, and you're going to the locker room. It's been consistent all season.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

GO TIGERS!!


What do you call the "missed" targets by LSU?


Posted: Jan 14, 2020 10:16 AM
 

If a tree falls in the woods but no one was there to see it then it's not targeting? By rule the Skalski call was correct. But, the calls or non-calls on the field were anything but consistent. That's my way of saying more targeting should have been called last night...by rule.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg


Replies: 27  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: Two for sale lower south sec:H row:II seats 13,15(about 18 yard line) about 10 steps below the porta...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
1897 people have read this post