Why is it ok for an offensive player to hit with the crown of the helmet but not a defensive player?
Targeting: I know I’ve asked this before
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
Great question. Particularly when they initiate the contact! How can the defender avoid the flag?
Are they supposed to stand there and take a helmet in the groin?
I was just watching the Kansas game and an Illinois player dove head first for a first down at about the same time the defender was diving for the tackle. It was nearly helmet-to-helmet bc the offensive player dove, which would have resulted in targeting for the defender.
All I can think is that they want to penalize defense to generate higher scores.
So injury can only occur when the defender hits with the crown?
I know the NFL has changed the rule to include offensive players. Any player initiating contact with the crown of the helmet is penalized. Reality is, many fans & commentators, still don’t know what targeting is.
I have no issue with targeting penalties. I do have issue with ejections, especially for first time offenders. I think if they want to keep accountability with the penalty, they should make it 3 targeting a = 1 game suspension. But no way a guy should be ejected for a single millisecond decision or instinct. Also, you could add in a “flagrant” for targeting where it’s clear there was bad intent. I know that’s hard for crews to interpret, but this goes more for those hits that are pretty wreckless. But 90% of targeting penalties are just the product of instinct in a split second decision. Certainly a huge disadvantage for defenders, knowing they are one mistake away from getting kicked out of the game.
I have no issue with targeting penalties. I do have issue with ejections, especially for first time offenders. I think if they want to keep accountability with the penalty, they should make it 3 targeting a = 1 game suspension. But no way a guy should be ejected for a single millisecond decision or instinct. Also, you could add in a “flagrant” for targeting where it’s clear there was bad intent. I know that’s hard for crews to interpret, but this goes more for those hits that are pretty wreckless. But 90% of targeting penalties are just the product of instinct in a split second decision. Certainly a huge disadvantage for defenders, knowing they are one mistake away from getting kicked out of the game.
The part that drives me crazy is similar to what happened to Fortune in our game (I know it got overturned, but it will not always). The defensive guy is broken down and begins the tackling process. The ball carrier tries to get lower, creating head-to-head contact.
It’s also ridiculous that they review these things frame-by-frame and assess intent and accountability. Sometimes it’s flagrant, but a lot of times, it’s a case of a player making a play with both individuals going at full-speed resulting in split-second changes in body position, etc.
As I commented before, a smart RB could make targeting a mission and draw a penalty on every play by intentionally making helmet to helmet contact, which he initiates, when he knows he is going to be tackled and sees a defender with his helmet lowered.
This is a significant part of the reason that we are giving up more than half a quarter of football starting this year.
Boxers also occasionally die; 'targeting' is like the referee awarding the bout to your opponent because he thinks you intentionally hit him on the side of the forehead instead of his chin. If you've boxed OR played football you know that things happen too fast with too much movement for that to happen most of the time. You can practice, yes, but when the action is on you're not out there or in there with a scope.
Its a dumb rule that hurts WAY more than it helps and is too difficult to accurately and fairly assess.