Targeting Calls are Destroying Football

[penguinpower]

So Youngstown was hosed on a bad call. Videos in the Duquesne vs YSU thread.

Watching Boise vs Portland state and another pussified call is made on Portland. WTF is this world coming to? Please put the BS targeting vids here

[clenz]

Is this like the PI call ysu fans bitched about from the ndsu game when the video showed the foul happening?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[penguinpower]

You make the call


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmUsnEyUsTk

- - - Updated - - -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCbOxR5Mf3s

- - - Updated - - -

I Just watched Portland State get a similar bad call.

[F'N Hawks]

The refs actually overturned a targeting call after reviewing it today in the UND game. I was stunned.

[clenz]

Leading with head

Contact with crown of helmet to players head

Id say that's a pretty spot on callhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190915/f94ff5f46a4dd6bdcf8070bb81a8b6af.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[penguinpower]

Portland State's Railroad Job.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko3sg-6QcIc

- - - Updated - - -


Leading with head

Contact with crown of helmet to players head

Id say that's a pretty spot on callhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190915/f94ff5f46a4dd6bdcf8070bb81a8b6af.jpg

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Bull****. That is textbook.

[Professor Chaos]

There was one against EWU today that was pretty iffy... you'll need ESPN+ to see the replay but if you skip ahead to the 1:03:00 mark (link below should take you straight to it) you can see the play. EWU defender basically had no where else to hit but the ball carrier's head because the ball carrier was going down to the ground head first. You can say he's gotta keep his head up on the tackle, which is true, but these calls sure put the defenders in a tough spot when such a simple and routine play can cost a guy the rest of the game.

https://www.espn.com/watch/player?id=d76597e2-65ce-4aae-aca9-a0476b65b66b&t=01h03m00s

[JSUSoutherner]

You make the call


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmUsnEyUsTk

- - - Updated - - -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCbOxR5Mf3s

- - - Updated - - -

I Just watched Portland State get a similar bad call.

That's targeting.

[JSUSoutherner]

There was one against EWU today that was pretty iffy... you'll need ESPN+ to see the replay but if you skip ahead to the 1:03:00 mark (link below should take you straight to it) you can see the play. EWU defender basically had no where else to hit but the ball carrier's head because the ball carrier was going down to the ground head first. You can say he's gotta keep his head up on the tackle, which is true, but these calls sure put the defenders in a tough spot when such a simple and routine play can cost a guy the rest of the game.

https://www.espn.com/watch/player?id=d76597e2-65ce-4aae-aca9-a0476b65b66b&t=01h03m00s

Coop was going down and the guy flew in helmet first.

That's as textbook as it gets.

[penguinpower]

That's targeting.


How is that targeting? Are you some sort of liberal? WTF. He was not intentionally trying to hit him in the head. They wear helmets for incidental contact.

[Professor Chaos]

Coop was going down and the guy flew in helmet first.

That's as textbook as it gets.
Really? Textbook targeting? Did you even watch the replay?

I'd say that's textbook collateral damage from the rule. You cannot tell me watching that in realtime you even had the slightest inkling that it was targeting. The referees on the field obviously didn't and there wasn't a single JSU player that I noticed that did anything other than get ready for the next play since it looked like such a routine ending of the play. Everyone looked confused as to why play was stopped before the next snap (including Cooper).

[Professor Chaos]

How is that targeting? Are you some sort of liberal? WTF. He was not intentionally trying to hit him in the head. They wear helmets for incidental contact.
It does not have to be intentional... in fact very few targeting penalties (and penalties in general) are intentional.

[JSUSoutherner]

Really? Textbook targeting? Did you even watch the replay?

I'd say that's textbook collateral damage from the rule. You cannot tell me watching that in realtime you even had the slightest inkling that it was targeting. The referees on the field obviously didn't and there wasn't a single JSU player that I noticed that did anything other than get ready for the next play since it looked like such a routine ending of the play.

Yeah I watched the replay. I watched it in real time, I watched it on our jumbo, and I watched it through your link.

The rule is that contact to the head, neck, or shoulders of a defenseless player is targeting.

As Coop is basically on the ground by the time the kid comes flying in I'd say Coop qualified as defenseless.

The refs video reviewed it and agreed.

[JSUSoutherner]

It does not have to be intentional... in fact very few targeting penalties (and penalties in general) are intentional.

Hold on weren't you just telling me the EWU call was bogus because the defender didn't mean to do it?

[veinup]

it’s interesting how several people here (who presumably watch a lot of football) don’t seem to even know what the rule says..

[penguinpower]

Really? Textbook targeting? Did you even watch the replay?

I'd say that's textbook collateral damage from the rule. You cannot tell me watching that in realtime you even had the slightest inkling that it was targeting. The referees on the field obviously didn't and there wasn't a single JSU player that I noticed that did anything other than get ready for the next play since it looked like such a routine ending of the play.

The hit the Youngstown player made was not called on the field. They were preparing the next play and the replay booth stopped the game and called it. I've never seen that before. If you've played the game, it is not reasonable to expect the play to be any better than what happened. The defender did not lead with his helmet. He did not hit him after the ball was thrown. He caused a fumble. The player was not defenseless, he could have moved out of the pocket and it was his choice to take the hit. How about the ****ty play of the RT. He should be penalized for sucking so bad.

[Professor Chaos]

Yeah I watched the replay. I watched it in real time, I watched it on our jumbo, and I watched it through your link.

The rule is that contact to the head, neck, or shoulders of a defenseless player is targeting.

As Coop is basically on the ground by the time the kid comes flying in I'd say Coop qualified as defenseless.

The refs video reviewed it and agreed.
If you did watch it you obviously had some thick Gamecock goggles on because he was not basically on the ground and still had plenty of forward momentum. The hit from #22 kept him from getting probably an extra 1-2 yards. Calling him defenseless is also borderline laughable... he's a ball carrier engaged with a tackler... if he's not ready to get hit by the incoming cavalry in that situation he shouldn't be playing at that level.

[JSUSoutherner]

The hit the Youngstown player made was not called on the field. They were preparing the next play and the replay boot stopped the game and called it. I've never seen that before. If you've played the game, it is not reasonable to expect the play to be any better than what happened. The defender did not lead with his helmet. He did not hit him after the ball was thrown. He caused a fumble.

They did the same thing in our game. It wasn't called on the field. They got it off replay.

[Professor Chaos]

Hold on weren't you just telling me the EWU call was bogus because the defender didn't mean to do it?
You better go back and read it. I said it was iffy because the defender had nothing else to hit in that situation. He lowered his head so he couldn't see what he was hitting which he shouldn't have done but it's such a trivial mistake and a harmless looking play it stuck me as a great example of enforcing the rule by the letter of it rather than the intent of the rule (notice I said the intent of the rule not the player).

[JSUSoutherner]

You better go back and read it. I said it was iffy because the defender had nothing else to hit in that situation. He lowered his head so he couldn't see what he was hitting which he shouldn't have done but it's such a trivial mistake and a harmless looking play it stuck me as a great example of enforcing the rule by the letter of it rather than the intent of the rule (notice I said the intent of the rule not the player).

You mean it was unintentional? So it made makes no difference.

The rule isn't "if you hit the head when you have another body part you can hit"

[TheRevSFA]

SFA got hit with a questionable one against SUU. Unfortunately the Pluto broadcast was so bad that you couldn’t tell if it truly was

[BEAR]

UCA lost one of our best defensive players tonight due to a targeting call. I heard they will appeal it before the Hawaii game because he won't get to play in it if they don't. Weak call IMO but who knows. Hawaii may be a loss for us anyway so no biggie.

[Professor Chaos]

You mean it was unintentional? So it made makes no difference.

The rule isn't "if you hit the head when you have another body part you can hit"
So what's he supposed to do? Just let the ball carrier fall forward for the extra 1-2 yards since all he can hit is the guy's head? What if that's on a 4th down and that extra 1-2 yards is the difference?

He had to make "forcible contact above the shoulders" in that situation to stop the ball carrier's momentum. I grant you that he shouldn't have lowered his head and that's probably the explanation the officiating crew would give but even with that it was a borderline call IMO.

[JSUSoutherner]

So what's he supposed to do? Just let the ball carrier fall forward for the extra 1-2 yards since all he can hit is the guy's head? What if that's on a 4th down and that extra 1-2 yards is the difference?

He had to make "forcible contact above the shoulders" in that situation to stop the ball carrier's momentum. I grant you that he shouldn't have lowered his head and that's probably the explanation the officiating crew would give but even with that it was a borderline call IMO.

Okay, let me ask you two questions:

1.) What is targeting?

2.) Did the EWU player lead with his helmet and hit with the crown of his helmet?

Those are the only two relevant things here.

[penguinpower]

If you did watch it you obviously had some thick Gamecock goggles on because he was not basically on the ground and still had plenty of forward momentum. The hit from #22 kept him from getting probably an extra 1-2 yards. Calling him defenseless is also borderline laughable... he's a ball carrier engaged with a tackler... if he's not ready to get hit by the incoming cavalry in that situation he shouldn't be playing at that level.

Here is the play in question. How does the defender know the runner will not lower his head too?






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=922hYSCpjWo

[Professor Chaos]

Okay, let me ask you two questions:

1.) What is targeting?

2.) Did the EWU player lead with his helmet and hit with the crown of his helmet?

Those are the only two relevant things here.
What is targeting? Forcible contact above the shoulders (didn't look it up but that's what I understand it as).
Did the EWU player lead with his helmet? Yes
Did the EWU player hit with the crown of his helmet? I'd say no but it's borderline.

[JSUSoutherner]

What is targeting? Forcible contact above the shoulders (didn't look it up but that's what I understand it as).
Did the EWU lead with his helmet? Yes
Did the EWU player hit with the crown of his helmet? I'd say no but it's borderline.

What part of his helmet did he hit with then?

[penguinpower]

What part of his helmet did he hit with then?


As a defender....What are you supposed to do in that situation? I don't understand how the defender knows what the runner will do. Hell you could say that the runner leads with the crown of his helmet too. The defender does not know what the runner will do.

[Professor Chaos]

What part of his helmet did he hit with then?
Could have been the side... could have been the crown... the shoulder(s) could've absorbed just as much or more impact than the helmet(s) did. It's tough to say for sure. That's why I think it's a borderline/iffy call. I understand why it was made I just think it puts defenders in a very tough position in those types of situations and it's a shame that if the coin flips the wrong way for them they're out of the game.


As a defender....Waht are you supposed to do in that situation? I don't understand how the defender know what the runner will do. Hell you could say that the runner lead with the crown of his helmet too. The defender does not know what the runner will do.
Like I said earlier the only thing the defender could've done there is keep his head up on the hit. I've never played at that level but I'd imagine that's a hell of a lot easier said than done in a situation like that.

[CockyGeek]

Targeting is leading with the helmet. It doesn't matter where the helmet ends up. If you're launching yourself like a torpedo then it's targeting. The YSU one is stupid but I agree with the EWU one.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[JSUSoutherner]

As a defender....Waht are you supposed to do in that situation? I don't understand how the defender know what the runner will do. Hell you could say that the runner lead with the crown of his helmet too. The defender does not know what the runner will do.

If the rule is forcible contact to the head, and this player clearly lead with his head, and hit another player on the head forcibly, what difference does 'not knowing what to do in that situation' make?

[JSUSoutherner]

Could have been the side... could have been the crown... the shoulder(s) could've absorbed just as much or more impact than the helmet(s) did. It's tough to say for sure. That's why I think it's a borderline/iffy call. I understand why it was made I just think it puts defenders in a very tough position in those types of situations and it's a shame that if the coin flips the wrong way for them they're out of the game.


Like I said earlier the only thing the defender could've done there is keep his head up on the hit. I've never played at that level but I'd imagine that's a hell of a lot easier said than done in a situation like that.

So why do you insist I'm a blind homer when, as you say, you can see why it was called targeting?

[Professor Chaos]

If the rule is forcible contact to the head, and this player clearly lead with his head, and hit another player on the head forcibly, what difference does 'not knowing what to do in that situation' make?
Alright, so I dug up the rules verbatim: https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/college-football-helmet-targeting-rule-explained


Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Instances include, but are not limited to:
•Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
•A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
•Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
•Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet.
So of those I'll say the guy was clearly in violation of the 3rd point and possibly the 4th point (but I don't think it's clear he initiated contact with the crown of his helmet.

But here's the part that I'd dispute really grays the enforcement in this scenario:

Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but not limited to:
•a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
•a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
•a kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
•a kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
•a player on the ground.
•a player obviously out of the play.
•a player who receives a blind-side block.
•a ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
•a quarterback any time after a change of possession.
•a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.
The only possible scenario there is "a ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped". Cooper was obviously in the grasp of an opponent but I'd say it's pretty clear his forward progress was not stopped.

Now, as the article explains, if they rule that he led with the crown of his helmet it doesn't matter if the ball carrier is defenseless or not. But if they ruled that he just made forcible contact to the helmet of a ball carrier, not necessarily with the crown of the helmet, who was defenseless I'd say that's pretty clearly a bad call.

So, again, it was a borderline/iffy targeting call. I felt bad for the EWU guy.

[JSUSoutherner]

Alright, so I dug up the rules verbatim: https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/college-football-helmet-targeting-rule-explained


So of those I'll say the guy was clearly in violation of the 3rd point and possibly the 4th point (but I don't think it's clear he initiated contact with the crown of his helmet.

But here's the part that I'd dispute really grays the enforcement in this scenario:

The only possible scenario there is "a ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped". Cooper was obviously in the grasp of an opponent but I'd say it's pretty clear his forward progress was not stopped.

Now, as the article explains, if they rule that he led with the crown of his helmet it doesn't matter if the ball carrier is defenseless or not. But if they ruled that he just made forcible contact to the helmet of a ball carrier, not necessarily with the crown of the helmet, who was defenseless I'd say that's pretty clearly a bad call.

So, again, it was a borderline/iffy targeting call. I felt bad for the EWU guy.

Sure it's a bad break for the EWU guy but the rules weren't written specifically to kick him out. He obviously checked enough boxes for the refs to stop the game, take a look, and make the call. It's not like it was blind decision. It went to replay. It was scrutinized.


Also I'd say it's likely it didn't really affect the game that much in the grand scheme of things. He was their second string safety. Not that it matters in whether it was targeting, just pointing that out to dispel any notion that JSU's epic comeback occured because 'the refs took out a major playmaker for EWU' or some garbage.

[Professor Chaos]

Sure it's a bad break for the EWU guy but the rules weren't written specifically to kick him out. He obviously checked enough boxes for the refs to stop the game, take a look, and make the call. It's not like it was blind decision. It went to replay. It was scrutinized.


Also I'd say it's likely it didn't really affect the game that much in the grand scheme of things. He was their second string safety. Not that it matters in whether it was targeting, just pointing that out to dispel any notion that JSU's epic comeback occured because 'the refs took out a major playmaker for EWU' or some garbage.
Agreed, tough break for the EWU guy and it definitely wasn't even close to the top (or even on) the list of reasons why JSU won the game.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

I've been watching a lot of games and honestly I haven't seen many targeting calls. Overall, I think the games have been a lot cleaner. I certainly haven't seen any mickey mouse type ejections...

[BisonBacker]

You make the call


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmUsnEyUsTk

- - - Updated - - -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCbOxR5Mf3s

- - - Updated - - -

I Just watched Portland State get a similar bad call.

That does look like a BS Call to me. EDIT: With the freezeframe still showing the helmet to helmet contact I can see where the call is made. It does illustrate the difference between football of yesteryear and football of today. But with all the CTE injuriy awareness it's hard to blame the refs or the rules committee's for changing the rules to protect the players.

[Cocky]

My biggest gripe with the rule if its a safety rule, if an offensive player lowers his head at contact then they are targeting. Remove them from the game the same as a defensive player. If a lineman hits another lineman in the head remove them from the game. If helmet to helmet contact is dangerous the position played shouldnt increase or decrease the damage to your head.

[ElCid]

UCA lost one of our best defensive players tonight due to a targeting call. I heard they will appeal it before the Hawaii game because he won't get to play in it if they don't. Weak call IMO but who knows. Hawaii may be a loss for us anyway so no biggie.

What's with the negative waves? xrotatehx

[TheKingpin28]

My biggest gripe with the rule if its a safety rule, if an offensive player lowers his head at contact then they are targeting. Remove them from the game the same as a defensive player. If a lineman hits another lineman in the head remove them from the game. If helmet to helmet contact is dangerous the position played shouldnt increase or decrease the damage to your head.

NGTH

We all know that sport only wants the offense to succeed, hence why the penalties are they way they are.

[veinup]

That does look like a BS Call to me. EDIT: With the freezeframe still showing the helmet to helmet contact I can see where the call is made. It does illustrate the difference between football of yesteryear and football of today. But with all the CTE injuriy awareness it's hard to blame the refs or the rules committee's for changing the rules to protect the players.

at the end of the day it really is about the safety of the players. the powers that be have decided to err on the side of being safer instead of being not as safe. this leads to a handful of calls that seem unfair, situations where you wonder what the defender was actually supposed to do, ejections, etc. those are just the consequences of deciding to err on the side of safety.

the people who make the money and make the rules have decided that player safety is more important than whether or not some dude at eastern washington university gets ejected over a “borderline” targeting call. you either accept it or you don’t, but the game has been going this way for a while now.

[MR. CHICKEN]

at the end of the day it really is about the safety of the players. the powers that be have decided to err on the side of being safer instead of being not as safe. this leads to a handful of calls that seem unfair, situations where you wonder what the defender was actually supposed to do, ejections, etc. those are just the consequences of deciding to err on the side of safety.

the people who make the money and make the rules have decided that player safety is more important than whether or not some dude at eastern washington university gets ejected over a “borderline” targeting call. you either accept it or you don’t, but the game has been going this way for a while now.

......PLAYER #1....FO' PORTLAND STATE.....EJECTED FO' HIT ON BOISE QB......AS HE JES' RELEASED UH PASS.......BOYS IN BOOTH.....DIDN'T SEE IT DAT WAY....AS #1.....TURNED HIS HEAD....AN' MOSTLAH CAUGHT HIM WHIFF SHOULDER PADS........AN' YER WORDS.....ARE WHAT CAME TA ME.......AS DEY REPLAYED UH FEW TIMES......AWK!

[semobison]

Unfortunately wherever your shoulders go your head ain't far away. Football is a bang bang sport. I believe that the rule was implemented to stop the defenders from leading with the head or helmet. As fast as the game is played contact with the helmet is inevitable and proving intention is difficult.

[JMUNJ08]

While I'm sure everyone can point to a bad call, watching some of the big boys yesterday there were multiple targeting ejections. It was ANNOYING and FRUSTRATING to watch. Always seemed to take away any momentum/ flow to the game.
Many of these hits in slow-mo are still wince worthy.

Now, NONE of the ones I saw were incorrectly called. The rule has been tweaked but around for a few years now. There really are no 'gotchas' here and many of the players were not surprised to be ejected.

This comes down to coaching proper, LEGAL techniques. If coaches making 6-7 figures can't do that, then they are doing a dis-service to the kids from a safety and competitive standpoint.

The game is being cleaned up and made safer if we like it or not. Learn the rules and play the game.

[clenz]

While I'm sure everyone can point to a bad call, watching some of the big boys yesterday there were multiple targeting ejections. It was ANNOYING and FRUSTRATING to watch. Always seemed to take away any momentum/ flow to the game.
Many of these hits in slow-mo are still wince worthy.

Now, NONE of the ones I saw were incorrectly called. The rule has been tweaked but around for a few years now. There really are no 'gotchas' here and many of the players were not surprised to be ejected.

This comes down to coaching proper, LEGAL techniques. If coaches making 6-7 figures can't do that, then they are doing a dis-service to the kids from a safety and competitive standpoint.

The game is being cleaned up and made safer if we like it or not. Learn the rules and play the game.Yup

I was taught head in front and shoulder to the waist starting in middle school. Call it the rugby style. I got to college and coaches were teaching drive the face mask to the sternum. Id never heard that before and never got comfortable doing that. Got my ass chewed every day for not doing it correctly

That type of tackling is now not supposed to be taught anymore because of its dangers. Because it leads to head and heck injuries.

Did the YSU player use a text book head to chest technique? Sure. But this is what happens with that technique. That's targeting every time. Now if it's enforced is another topic but by rule that's targeting 101

Here's the rule


Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.



Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Instances include, but are not limited to:

Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.

A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.

Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.

Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet

Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but not limited to:

a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.

a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

a kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.

a kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

a player on the ground.

a player obviously out of the play.

a player who receives a blind-side block.

a ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.

a quarterback any time after a change of possession.

a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.




By every single measure it was 100% targeting. All because that player decided to go for a kill **** rather than making the same play by using his shoulder and mid section height.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[BNiche]

I've been watching a lot of games and honestly I haven't seen many targeting calls. Overall, I think the games have been a lot cleaner. I certainly haven't seen any mickey mouse type ejections...

There was one in the Fordham/Bryant game - Glenn Cunningham was ejected due to it. By letter of the law, it could be called targeting, but the intent (none), force (minimal, not 100% speed), and the position of the receiver (going down, but still a non-defensiveless receiver) made the ejection extremely harsh.

[PAllen]

Army got totally hosed at Ohio State last week. Wasn't even called on the field, but went to replay, where in super slow-mo, you could see the split second delay between the runner getting tripped up (thus becoming defenseless) and him contacting the shoulder pad of a tackler who had already lowered his shoulder and turned his head away to avoid any head to head contact. Targeting is a BS call the way it is being enforced. One of the reasons I don't watch as much football as I used to.

[Professor Chaos]

Army got totally hosed at Ohio State last week. Wasn't even called on the field, but went to replay, where in super slow-mo, you could see the split second delay between the runner getting tripped up (thus becoming defenseless) and him contacting the shoulder pad of a tackler who had already lowered his shoulder and turned his head away to avoid any head to head contact. Targeting is a BS call the way it is being enforced. One of the reasons I don't watch as much football as I used to.
The main problem I have with the enforcement and the punishment is officials are told to err on the side of caution and call it targeting even if it's borderline but any and every targeting foul is an automatic ejection. I think that's a pretty careless way to enforce it. I think the idea was tossed around in the offseason (but eventually tabled) to go to a basketball like progression where they can call a targeting 1 (equivalent to a flagrant 1 in basketball) or a targeting 2 foul. Both are 15 yard personal fouls but targeting 2 is an automatic ejection whereas targeting 1 isn't unless it's a player's 2nd personal foul of the game.

If they're going to err on the side of caution and call the penalty even if they're not sure it would be nice if they differentiated the punishment between a clear targeting penalty and an iffy one.

[PAllen]

The main problem I have with the enforcement and the punishment is officials are told to err on the side of caution and call it targeting even if it's borderline but any and every targeting foul is an automatic ejection. I think that's a pretty careless way to enforce it. I think the idea was tossed around in the offseason (but eventually tabled) to go to a basketball like progression where they can call a targeting 1 (equivalent to a flagrant 1 in basketball) or a targeting 2 foul. Both are 15 yard personal fouls but targeting 2 is an automatic ejection whereas targeting 1 isn't unless it's a player's 2nd personal foul of the game.

If they're going to err on the side of caution and call the penalty even if they're not sure it would be nice if they differentiated the punishment between a clear targeting penalty and an iffy one.

That and the review in slow mo to try to differentiate millisecond time steps that go by faster than the human brain can comprehend is the problem. The following progression was drilled into me as an official: "that looks like a foul" - reach for the flag; "i'm pretty sure that's a foul" - grab the flag; "that is a foul" - pull the flag out; "that is absolutely a foul" - throw the flag. That progression is completely bypassed with targeting. Also, they need to institute a modifier similar to DPI. Once the runner begins to go down, targeting can't be called on a tackler. You can still call a late hit, or unnecessary roughness. But if the tackler lowers his shoulder and turns his head (the only way to avoid head contact) then you can't expect him to use his Jedi force abilities to know that the runner has now changed levels.

[penguinpower]

Yup

I was taught head in front and shoulder to the waist starting in middle school. Call it the rugby style. I got to college and coaches were teaching drive the face mask to the sternum. Id never heard that before and never got comfortable doing that. Got my ass chewed every day for not doing it correctly

That type of tackling is now not supposed to be taught anymore because of its dangers. Because it leads to head and heck injuries.

Did the YSU player use a text book head to chest technique? Sure. But this is what happens with that technique. That's targeting every time. Now if it's enforced is another topic but by rule that's targeting 101

Here's the rule


Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.



Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Instances include, but are not limited to:

Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.

A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.

Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.

Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet

Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but not limited to:

a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.

a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

a kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.

a kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

a player on the ground.

a player obviously out of the play.

a player who receives a blind-side block.

a ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.

a quarterback any time after a change of possession.

a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.




By every single measure it was 100% targeting. All because that player decided to go for a kill **** rather than making the same play by using his shoulder and mid section height.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk




You are living in a fantasy world where every call on the field is perfect. Regardless of the current rules, and the unreasonable expectation that players can conform to turning their head and not launching up into the person during the tackle or hit (which by the way doesn’t mean they won’t have head to head contact etc.) blatantly using the crown of the helmet and the appearance of intent should be the true factors in determining the foul. As it stands, it is totally out of control.

[GreenGlasses]

How is that targeting? Are you some sort of liberal? WTF. He was not intentionally trying to hit him in the head. They wear helmets for incidental contact.

Is that suppose to be an insult to be a liberal. I def don't suck on Trumps nuts unlike you since you made the comment, so yeah Im a lib.

But that is targeting, A textbook case. He led with the helmet and made contact. It doesn't have to be vicious, it just has to be contact.

Does it matter Youngstown will be lucky to make the playoffs wen they get into the teeth of their schedule anyway

[penguinpower]

Is that suppose to be an insult to be a liberal. I def don't suck on Trumps nuts unlike you since you made the comment, so yeah Im a lib.

But that is targeting, A textbook case. He led with the helmet and made contact. It doesn't have to be vicious, it just has to be contact.

Does it matter Youngstown will be lucky to make the playoffs wen they get into the teeth of their schedule anyway



Not meant to be an insult. It is simply a fact that Liberals are afraid of violence so they pussify everything.

[JSUSoutherner]

Not meant to be an insult. It is simply a fact that Liberals are afraid of violence so they pussify everything.

Or you guys could just not spoil the FCS board with your political BS. Thatd be great too.

[uni88]

Not meant to be an insult. It is simply a fact that Liberals are afraid of violence so they pussify everything.

Take this crap to the Poly board where it belongs and leave it off of here.

[TheKingpin28]

Or you guys could just not spoil the FCS board with your political BS. Thatd be great too.

this

[uni88]

My biggest gripe with the rule if its a safety rule, if an offensive player lowers his head at contact then they are targeting. Remove them from the game the same as a defensive player. If a lineman hits another lineman in the head remove them from the game. If helmet to helmet contact is dangerous the position played shouldnt increase or decrease the damage to your head.

That bugs the snot out of me too.


I was taught head in front and shoulder to the waist starting in middle school. Call it the rugby style. I got to college and coaches were teaching drive the face mask to the sternum. Id never heard that before and never got comfortable doing that. Got my ass chewed every day for not doing it correctly

That type of tackling is now not supposed to be taught anymore because of its dangers. Because it leads to head and heck injuries.

I haven't coached in a while but I think they're also getting away from head in front now too. Your college coaches were way behind the times. I was teaching flag players better technique than that 13 years ago and I was just a volunteer youth coach.

[KPSUL]

The following would describe targeting from most fan's perspective: "If a player from the opposing team lowers his head and strikes a defenseless player about the head, face, neck or shoulder as the primary point of contact - that is targeting. If a player from my team does it, it is called good old school hard tackling!" xnodx

[KPSUL]

Not meant to be an insult. It is simply a fact that Liberals are afraid of violence so they pussify everything. Vince Lombardi had very liberal views for his time in the areas of race relations and gay rights. Was he afraid of Violence and did he "pussify" everything?

[clenz]

That bugs the snot out of me too.



I haven't coached in a while but I think they're also getting away from head in front now too. Your college coaches were way behind the times. I was teaching flag players better technique than that 13 years ago and I was just a volunteer youth coach.I was a freshman in college 13 years ago

My HC is now the OC at Miami OH.

If you think teaching that technique in college was behind the times in 2006 you're crazy.

Outside of my knee injury it's a big part of why I stopped playing. I couldn't get comfortable with the idea of driving my head into anyone like that.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[ysubigred]

Not meant to be an insult. It is simply a fact that Liberals are afraid of violence so they pussify everything.It's not the political board but, the liberals don't like violence unless they're in sighting it resisting 45 then when they get it back everybody's a racist.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[ysubigred]

Vince Lombardi had very liberal views for his time in the areas of race relations and gay rights. Was he afraid of Violence and did he "pussify" everything?Apples to oranges just big difference between liberals of then and liberals of now[emoji2958]

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[JSUSoutherner]

It's not the political board

No, it isn't.

[Paladin1aa]

Would the Neanderthal conservatives take it to another board ?

As for targeting, I’m all for player safety. I agree, if Reed had placed his head to the side and rammed his shoulder in, it would have been an easy no call and a clean tackle.

[JSUSoutherner]

Would the Neanderthal conservatives take it to another board ?

As for targeting, I’m all for player safety. I agree, if Reed had placed his head to the side and rammed his should in, it would have been an easy no call and a clean tackle.

The thing with the targeting calls is the rules are already written. It's not a 'situational' call where it's only targeting if 'this scenario' is why there was helmet contact.

[ysubigred]

Would the Neanderthal conservatives take it to another board ?

As for targeting, I’m all for player safety. I agree, if Reed had placed his head to the side and rammed his shoulder in, it would have been an easy no call and a clean tackle.OK just stay in your safe space and play with your play dough. Targeting should be more objective. Malicious or not. International or not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[ysubigred]

No, it isn't.You are correct sir. Sorry won't happen again[emoji19]

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[cats2506]

Apples to oranges just big difference between liberals of then and liberals of now[emoji2958]

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
just call it "undocumented cranial contact" and the libs will like it then

[AmsterBison]

The only thing that can destroy football is CTE. After all, the dangerous nature of football almost caused colleges to abolish it over 100 years ago.

[chattownmocs]

Isn't it just strange that there are like 3 girls sports with higher concussion rates than football and no one gives a ****.

[JSUSoutherner]

Isn't it just strange that there are like 3 girls sports with higher concussion rates than football and no one gives a ****.

Which one of them do you play? :D

[TheKingpin28]

Which one of them do you play? :D

Sandwich making