Targeting

[blion72]

when this rule first was introduced it was about helmet to helmet. Initially it was clear, although at times there were calls where a player barely grazed the helmet (Penn State v UMich 2016).

Now we seem to have a rule where even the helmet is not involved. It is now become "defenseless" player and is very liberal interpretation. The call v Carter was far from the original intent. Ray Isom v Miami in Fiesta Bowl would likely have drawn penalty. At some point it is football.

 

[CDLionFL]

I like the idea of the rule. But the interpretation of it has quickly become inconsistent. The targeting call on the QB we saw in the LSU game tonight was why the rule was created. A defender using his helmet as a weapon to another player's head in other instances is another reason. We'd like to avoid situations like the play that got the Steelers Ryan Shazier knocked out of football. The problem is, this rule has been on the books for so long and yet, defenders continue to use the helmet as the principle point of contact. As for the interpretation, we have had too many plays where a receiver or runner will drop down at the last second and it catches the defender in a bad spot and they go helmet to helmet and the flag flies. The play in the 2016 Michigan game was awful and the call on Thursday night was beyond awful. For defenders, I'd continue to say 'stop leading with your head'. But then, what about the RB/WR dropping their head like a battering ram? That NEVER gets called and at times, maybe it should.

 

[NB4PSU]

I just heard that thje ncaa is requiring all players to submit their social media info to the clearinghouse... they will be looking for indications that a player is pre-disposed to do something hurtful to a defenseless player. Tom Cruise is lead investigator.

The idea of the rule is perfectly fine... we ALL know when we see a blatantly bad hit. But nowadays I hear friends commenting on their own interpretation of the rule. So when it happened in our game a friend firecely agrees with the call... and we ask.. but is it just a football play or something terrible. Hesitation (at which point the answer is obvious).. well....

The play in our game was a football play. You want to flag him, ok.. but you don't eject a kid for that.

I've so had it with this boosheet.. the minute refs need to interpret a player's intent is the minute the boat was missed.

I have an idea. Round up 21 people and call them the supreme court of cfb. They vote up or down on a play and the chips fall as they may. Be faster and outcome would be every bit as useful aas the crap we endure now.

 

[PSU Chicago]

The play in our game was a football play. You want to flag him, ok.. but you don't eject a kid for that.

This is the answer.

 

[harjeff]

I agree that defenders have to a better job of keeping head up overall, but the play in quesiton was ridicullous because he really led with the shoulder but the helmets came together due to being so low to the ground and a loose ball. CJF had a good description in the post game presser where he basically said when guys are diving to the ground at some point there head will come together no matter how hard you try and keep your head up...there definitly needs to be some descression as was mentioned earlier its usually pretty obvious when intent was bad and the player should be punished, whereas situation like this where its obvious;ly a football play.

 

[Nitt1300]

probably the worst written and most mis-enforced rule in football

but it's a tough thing to get right and it's probably better to be too rigid than too lax

 

[razpsu]

What the guy did in the lsu game should be text book ejection for a month. Then he was like what, me?
that was vicious and he was trying to knock the qb out of the game.

 

[Nittany1865Farmer]

Another part of the targeting rule that could be added: when PU's player went directly for Clifford's knees from his blind side and tried to hit his helmet directly on the back of the knees, why is that not called targeting? A player is using his helmet as a weapon for the purpose of injuring a player, though it is the knees instead of the head area. You could easily ruin a kid's career by destroying his knees just as much as causing a severe head injury with one, solid hit.

 

[BCrum]

1 of the many plays that happen so quickly in live action. Thing are easy to judge in super slow motion.
This one just happens to be reviewable and they still get it wrong.
I get the intent but game play happens so fast for a defensive player in motion.

Tell me there can't be holding or pass interference on every play if they were reviewable. Remember the mess the NFL got into when they had PI as a reviewable penalty.

 

[pamdlion]

It’s a good rule that was needed but needs some common sense. The call on the LSU player is why the rule was put in place. The call on Carter wasn’t why it was put in place.

Has Franklin spoken out or appealed? He needs to do so.

 

[BobPSU92]

Let ‘em play. This is for our entertainment.

 

[Yogiman71]

Did they do away with the stupid rule of keeping them out of the first half of the next game ?

 

[CDLionFL]

Did they do away with the stupid rule of keeping them out of the first half of the next game ?

They did not. The LSU player will have to sit out the first half of the next game. Since Carter's happened in the first half on Thursday night, he is eligible. There is a rule now in place that a coach can appeal to the conference to review the ejection and if the conference overturns, a player that got called for the penalty in the 2nd half will be eligible for the entire next game.

 

[Bvillebaron]

It’s a good rule that was needed but needs some common sense. The call on the LSU player is why the rule was put in place. The call on Carter wasn’t why it was put in place.

Has Franklin spoken out or appealed? He needs to do so.

probably the worst written and most mis-enforced rule in football

but it's a tough thing to get right and it's probably better to be too rigid than too lax

Unfortunately it’s too rigid in some instances and too lax in others.

 

[Woodpecker]

Unfortunately it’s too rigid in some instances and too lax in others.

Bob?

 

[blion72]

It’s a good rule that was needed but needs some common sense. The call on the LSU player is why the rule was put in place. The call on Carter wasn’t why it was put in place.

Has Franklin spoken out or appealed? He needs to do so.

Didn't this happen in the first half so Carter will be able to play at start of OU game? Nothing to appeal is there?

 

[pamdlion]

You might be right. Franklin however can’t quietly sit back on this for fear of repercussions, fine etc. It was a bad call. It was the wrong call. He needs to publicly have the back of his players and team.

 

[Woodpecker]

repercussions, fine

Wait, what?

 

[Pennst8]

when this rule first was introduced it was about helmet to helmet. Initially it was clear, although at times there were calls where a player barely grazed the helmet (Penn State v UMich 2016).

Now we seem to have a rule where even the helmet is not involved. It is now become "defenseless" player and is very liberal interpretation. The call v Carter was far from the original intent. Ray Isom v Miami in Fiesta Bowl would likely have drawn penalty. At some point it is football.

It's very good rule. Protects young players as well as pros. The idea was to save the player as well as the sport. All for it. The inconsistency on what makes it targeting is the big issue. No way was our guy targeting, yet it was called and he's out of the game. I change the channel and see 2 Pitt players OBVIOUSLY targeting and it is not called. The rule is great. the inconsistency on these calls is not.

 

[Metal Mike]

I have never seen this rule enforced on an offensive player. Many times, I have seen an offensive player lower his head to meet a defensive player. If they are truly concerned about player safety they would penalize and eject an offensive player for lowering his head.

 

[Woodpecker]

I have never seen this rule enforced on an offensive player. Many times, I have seen an offensive player lower his head to meet a defensive player. If they are truly concerned about player safety they would penalize and eject an offensive player for lowering his head.

 

[LB99]

It’s a good rule that was needed but needs some common sense. The call on the LSU player is why the rule was put in place. The call on Carter wasn’t why it was put in place.

Has Franklin spoken out or appealed? He needs to do so.

What can he appeal? Carter sat out the second half and is free to play at the start of this week’s game, correct? Now, if you are talking about in game appeal, that is a different issue and an unwinnable option. Incidentally, just a short time later on Thursday evening, during the Pitt-WVU game, there was a more violent, egregious play by a defender to the back of the receiver’s head as he was nearly completely on the ground…..and they waived off the targeting call. The interpretation of the call is horrible, even when they ask for a review from someone else. The purpose of the rule is noble and just, the interpretation is terrible.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It's very good rule. Protects young players as well as pros. The idea was to save the player as well as the sport. All for it. The inconsistency on what makes it targeting is the big issue. No way was our guy targeting, yet it was called and he's out of the game. I change the channel and see 2 Pitt players OBVIOUSLY targeting and it is not called. The rule is great. the inconsistency on these calls is not.

I watch plenty of football every weekend and still can’t tell you with confidence what constitutes targeting and what does not. That said, I think if Carter had made a play at the ball he wouldn’t have been called. He went for the hit (which I don’t have a problem with) and I think that may have been part of the targeting call.

 

[OptionBob]

They did not. The LSU player will have to sit out the first half of the next game. Since Carter's happened in the first half on Thursday night, he is eligible. There is a rule now in place that a coach can appeal to the conference to review the ejection and if the conference overturns, a player that got called for the penalty in the 2nd half will be eligible for the entire next game.

So, there is now an out for any OSU or Michigan player who gets ejected in the 2nd half of a game a week before a big game ... say, the Penn State game?

No doubt a Chase Young-like ruling will be made by the Big Ten.

 

[Metal Mike]

Good catch. I had not seen that play. Still it was not a runner or a wide reciever who lowers his head to meet a defender. Maybe you have examples of a runner or WR getting called for targeting.

 

[Woodpecker]

Good catch. I had not seen that play. Still it was not a runner or a wide reciever who lowers his head to meet a defender. Maybe you have examples of a runner or WR getting called for targeting.

No, I don't. I was giving an example of the "rule enforced on an offensive player"

 

[Yogiman71]

They did not. The LSU player will have to sit out the first half of the next game. Since Carter's happened in the first half on Thursday night, he is eligible. There is a rule now in place that a coach can appeal to the conference to review the ejection and if the conference overturns, a player that got called for the penalty in the 2nd half will be eligible for the entire next game.

Thanks for the info

 

[Eric_M]

Can the appeal be that the replay official is suspended for a game for such a BS application of this rule?

 

[Bison13]

It's very good rule. Protects young players as well as pros. The idea was to save the player as well as the sport. All for it. The inconsistency on what makes it targeting is the big issue. No way was our guy targeting, yet it was called and he's out of the game. I change the channel and see 2 Pitt players OBVIOUSLY targeting and it is not called. The rule is great. the inconsistency on these calls is not.

It’s a great rule for young players unfortunately there are so many youth football coaches who do not teach tackling correctly and promote the big hit as well as very few youth officials who will call that penalty

 

[LionJim]

I have never seen this rule enforced on an offensive player. Many times, I have seen an offensive player lower his head to meet a defensive player. If they are truly concerned about player safety they would penalize and eject an offensive player for lowering his head.

Lol, I just realized I can’t ever recall this being called on an offensive player. Nice pickup.

 

[bdgan]

They could play with the cushioned practice helmets.

 

[LB99]

They could play with the cushioned practice helmets.

Exactly. I’ve thought this for awhile now. If it provides superior protection during practice, why not use it in games?

 

[Pennst8]

It’s a great rule for young players unfortunately there are so many youth football coaches who do not teach tackling correctly and promote the big hit as well as very few youth officials who will call that penalty

Not just youth coaches, it's all coaches. The big hit is what they still teach rather than securing the ball carrier and getting him to the ground. The actual object of the sport. Jack Ham should teach tackling clinics around the country.

 

[Woodpecker]

Not just youth coaches, it's all coaches. The big hit is what they still teach rather than securing the ball carrier and getting him to the ground. The actual object of the sport. Jack Ham should teach tackling clinics around the country.

I thought that this was good

 

[LionJim]

Not just youth coaches, it's all coaches. The big hit is what they still teach rather than securing the ball carrier and getting him to the ground. The actual object of the sport. Jack Ham should teach tackling clinics around the country.

Well, why? Is it because the coaches don’t know any better?

 

[Bison13]

Well, why? Is it because the coaches don’t know any better?

Lots of things go in to it. Some is knowledge, some is not caring and some is the demographics and desire to win. Here in MD the guys they have coaching youth football all need to take the 'heads up' tackling safety course but I know many of those youth coaches do not care one bit about showing proper technique. There are certain coaches of youth programs who feed in to our HS that teach "the kill shot" to their kids as young as 8U. The comment I heard while observing practice was "I'll take a 15 yard penalty if you knock one of their players out of the game"

 

[PSUSignore]

Exactly. I’ve thought this for awhile now. If it provides superior protection during practice, why not use it in games?

I'm yet to hear a reasonable answer to this question. It seems nearly every team uses them in practice now which I assume means that someone at nearly every program agrees they are more useful than not for reducing injuries. So why not in the games? Because they look silly?

 

[LB99]

I'm yet to hear a reasonable answer to this question. It seems nearly every team uses them in practice now which I assume means that someone at nearly every program agrees they are more useful than not for reducing injuries. So why not in the games? Because they look silly?

The NFL is using them also….in practice.