Replies: 12
| visibility 2,079
|
CU Guru [1161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 626
Joined: 3/28/12
|
This targeting penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 2:44 PM
|
|
Needs some serious rework. It’s a terribly administered penalty with way too much subjectivity.
Message was edited by: SAG6060®
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: This targeting penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 2:46 PM
|
|
It's there to take away hits to the head. That was about as clear as it gets.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3462]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 5156
Joined: 9/12/10
|
But you can't review a penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 3:15 PM
|
|
I know you can review a targeting penalty AFTER it has been called just to determine weather or not a player is ejected, but how can you go back and review weather or not it was a penalty to begin with? As far as I know, no flag was ever thrown.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2926
Joined: 12/2/03
|
Re: But you can't review a penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 3:26 PM
|
|
You can't call a penalty, but you can disqualify a player from the booth. There was no penalty called (only an ejection). I think.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 626
Joined: 3/28/12
|
Re: This targeting penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 3:19 PM
[ in reply to Re: This targeting penalty ] |
|
I’m not saying it needs to be taken away. I agree 100% on player safety and to remove forceful contact to the head or neck. But come on. The defender high fived his helmet basically because he was trying to block the pass and incidentally hit him in the head with his hand. And I think it should be a 2 strike system on these questionable targeting fouls. Now if the guy goes full speed and launches the crown of his helmet directly toward and into a defenseless players head then yes eject him. But what happed withe Tanner against Louisville and what happened in this game. These are clearly not intentional. Let the players play. Punish the ones that are clear cut targeting and give a strike to those questionable ones where no ill intent is observed. At least something to this effect is much better than what is in place now.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5704]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7028
Joined: 8/3/05
|
I think you mean subjectivity.
Sep 23, 2017, 2:53 PM
|
|
Objectivity means there is no "open to interpretation" aspect.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 626
Joined: 3/28/12
|
Re: I think you mean subjectivity.
Sep 23, 2017, 3:13 PM
|
|
Indeed I did mean subjectivity. Fixed. Ty
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [290]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 395
Joined: 4/16/05
|
Re: This targeting penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 2:58 PM
|
|
So using the crown of the palm is targeting. Where is that in the definition.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9113
Joined: 1/15/08
|
Re: This targeting penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 3:04 PM
|
|
Can't hit the passer in the head or neck area. Which Pugh did, even though it was ticky tac. The officials on the field did not call it but super enforcer up in the both had to have an impact. I'd let that one slide like the officials on the field were going to do.
Seems like FSU is getting the same treatment that we get on these targeting calls by an ACC crew. I have yet to remember targeting being called on our opposing team. In years. Yet, we have them called on us every year. How is that?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6662]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9535
Joined: 1/16/99
|
Re: This targeting penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 3:13 PM
|
|
You can't hit the quarterback in the head and not get called. Come on.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9113
Joined: 1/15/08
|
Re: This targeting penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 3:22 PM
|
|
Lord, the passer ducked back to try to get the ball over Pugh. NCSU's WR saw it the entire time. He did not get blindsided. It is not like he intended to hit him in the head. Pugh was in the air extend and the WR (throwing WR) leaned back. It was not a vicious hit, but contact, nonetheless. Ejecting him for a full game is ridiculous. Personal foul, ok, but ejection, no.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2663]
TigerPulse: 76%
Posts: 4303
Joined: 1/4/07
|
because we haven't let defenders near any of our ball
Sep 23, 2017, 3:23 PM
[ in reply to Re: This targeting penalty ] |
|
carriers in years!
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [961]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1932
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: This targeting penalty
Sep 23, 2017, 3:28 PM
|
|
Must protect players but this is a lawyer penalty. Should not be able to use slomo or freeze frame to review; players didn't have it.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 12
| visibility 2,079
|
|
|