OT: I'm not sure I've seen a targeting call this year?

[18IsTheMan]

When Mizzou was called for a personal foul after one of their players shoved Nick, the refs were discussing it and the announcers said they might be evaluating it for targeting. Fortunately (and somewhat surprisingly) that didn't come up. But it got me to thinking, I can't recall if I've even seen a targeting call this year. I'm sure I have, but none that I really can think of. It's been downright rampant the last few years and it seemed pretty mch every game had at least one play, and quite often several plays, flagged for potential targeting, each coming with its own forever long review.

It just seems to have mostly vanished this year. Either players magically changed their tackling from last season or they have really de-emphasized calling it.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

I saw one called in the Clemson-Pitt game which was pretty obvious and was confirmed upon review.
Against Clemson by the way.

 

[I4CtheFuture]

I've seen a few and the trend seems to be if it's called on the field, they replay it several times and the announcers, like us, have been conditioned to what the rule says and you convince yourself that it is indeed targeting by the rule ...... but then replay chimes in and says "no targeting" ....leaving everyone baffled.

They're de-emphasizing it - which is good. What they've gone overboard with now is getting within 1 yard of the QB and sneezing on him.... that's gonna be a flag for roughing the passer. Beyond stupid. This is football, not ballet. Egregious late hits on the QB should be called. Tackling the QB 1/10th of a millisecond after he releases the ball should not be called. (But it is)

 

[18IsTheMan]

I've seen a few and the trend seems to be if it's called on the field, they replay it several times and the announcers, like us, have been conditioned to what the rule says and you convince yourself that it is indeed targeting by the rule ...... but then replay chimes in and says "no targeting" ....leaving everyone baffled.

They're de-emphasizing it - which is good. What they've gone overboard with now is getting within 1 yard of the QB and sneezing on him.... that's gonna be a flag for roughing the passer. Beyond stupid. This is football, not ballet. Egregious late hits on the QB should be called. Tackling the QB 1/10th of a millisecond after he releases the ball should not be called. (But it is)

I'm sure I have seen it, but I just can't recall any (though I have had less time watch games this year).

I recall one game last year I watched and there had to be at least 5 plays flagged for potential targeting (I seem to recall posting about it on here). It was just everywhere and totally screwed up the flow of the game. You could make a huge play on defense and have the offense on their heels, but then they get a free timeout to regroup while they take forever and a day to review the call.

 

[LonghornsGamecocks]

Was having conversation about this with friends a few weeks ago. In the games I've watched I've seen noticeably less actual targeting or near-targeting, regardless of flags or reviews. Perhaps years of stringent enforcement is starting to actually show up in permanent behavioral changes.

 

[kidrobinski]

I believe it's been intentionally de-emphasized because it was finally admitted that "targeting by the rule" was not in concert with the game of football. There are and always have been on-purpose use of the crown of the helmet in an attempt to hurt someone but those are relatively infrequent as that requires a set up target and forethought, and football happens way to fast to think about what you're reacting to, you just react. All the years I played never once did I intentionally run up with designs on hitting a guy with my helmet, but its just the natural reaction to lower your head when contact is nigh, runner or tackler; you can look at any player's helmet and see the scar marks from hitting other helmets. And its not something that can be coached out because its the nature of the game. Officials had begun flagging nature of the game penalties and calling it "targeting by the rule"; now it appears the emphasis is on the more overt hits, ones with intent, and they're not hard to differentiate. Horse collar is another "rule" that needs to be applied a little more realistically.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I believe it's been intentionally de-emphasized because it was finally admitted that "targeting by the rule" was not in concert with the game of football. There are and always have been on-purpose use of the crown of the helmet in an attempt to hurt someone but those are relatively infrequent as that requires a set up target and forethought, and football happens way to fast to think about what you're reacting to, you just react. All the years I played never once did I intentionally run up with designs on hitting a guy with my helmet, but its just the natural reaction to lower your head when contact is nigh, runner or tackler; you can look at any player's helmet and see the scar marks from hitting other helmets. And its not something that can be coached out because its the nature of the game. Officials had begun flagging nature of the game penalties and calling it "targeting by the rule"; now it appears the emphasis is on the more overt hits, ones with intent, and they're not hard to differentiate. Horse collar is another "rule" that needs to be applied a little more realistically.

What drove me crazy is when the offensive player would lower HIS head and essentially initiate targeting, but it's called against the defender. So many times the defender would dive for the tackle, then the offensive player would change his trajectory resulting in contact that met the targeting criteria.

I think you are correct in your latter point about flagging the intentional ones. That's what also drove me crazy. The name of the penalty alone...targeting...implies intent. So many of the plays that were flagged for targeting were obviously just football plays that result from playing the game fast.

 

[will110]

When Mizzou was called for a personal foul after one of their players shoved Nick, the refs were discussing it and the announcers said they might be evaluating it for targeting. Fortunately (and somewhat surprisingly) that didn't come up. But it got me to thinking, I can't recall if I've even seen a targeting call this year. I'm sure I have, but none that I really can think of. It's been downright rampant the last few years and it seemed pretty mch every game had at least one play, and quite often several plays, flagged for potential targeting, each coming with its own forever long review.

It just seems to have mostly vanished this year. Either players magically changed their tackling from last season or they have really de-emphasized calling it.

Demetrius Knight was called for roughing the passer with targeting against Missouri. The targeting aspect was overturned.

Georgia was flagged for targeting multiple times against Texas.

 

[Slim Chickens Gamecock]

on one of our Long runs, towards the goal line Mizzou DB had a helmet tackle that was borderline. it is weird that they don't check certain plays even when slowed down it is evident the crown pummeled the offensive guy.
Sammy Brown had a targeting and was out 2nd half of Pitt game. Wish that had happened this coming week.

 

[92Pony]

I believe it's been intentionally de-emphasized because it was finally admitted that "targeting by the rule" was not in concert with the game of football. There are and always have been on-purpose use of the crown of the helmet in an attempt to hurt someone but those are relatively infrequent as that requires a set up target and forethought, and football happens way to fast to think about what you're reacting to, you just react. All the years I played never once did I intentionally run up with designs on hitting a guy with my helmet, but its just the natural reaction to lower your head when contact is nigh, runner or tackler; you can look at any player's helmet and see the scar marks from hitting other helmets. And its not something that can be coached out because its the nature of the game. Officials had begun flagging nature of the game penalties and calling it "targeting by the rule"; now it appears the emphasis is on the more overt hits, ones with intent, and they're not hard to differentiate. Horse collar is another "rule" that needs to be applied a little more realistically.

Remember the old "spearing" call (from decades ago)?