Inequity of the targeting rule

[Cat fan in tn]

Target in the first minute of a half... you are out for 59 minutes (remainder of half and all next half). Target in last minute of half... you are out roughly 30 minutes ( remaining seconds of half and all the next half). So the severity of the penalty depends on WHEN it occurs, not simply that it did occur.

Furthermore, there is no allowance for obvious intent or obvious lack thereof.

If the NCAA insists on making it a penalty, why not standardize the penalty... say, 15 yrds and 15 minutes on the bench (similar to the penalty box in hockey)?

 

[volgrad500]

Target in the first minute of a half... you are out for 59 minutes (remainder of half and all next half). Target in last minute of half... you are out roughly 30 minutes ( remaining seconds of half and all the next half). So the severity of the penalty depends on WHEN it occurs, not simply that it did occur.

Furthermore, there is no allowance for obvious intent or obvious lack thereof.

If the NCAA insists on making it a penalty, why not standardize the penalty... say, 15 yrds and 15 minutes on the bench (similar to the penalty box in hockey)?

Agreed, this rule needs a lot of work. I haven't spent the time/not smart enough to know the answer, but when you have the ability for a bad call to affect not just the game you are in, but next week's game too?? That's out of control.

 

[GAVol]

Agreed, this rule needs a lot of work. I haven't spent the time/not smart enough to know the answer, but when you have the ability for a bad call to affect not just the game you are in, but next week's game too?? That's out of control.

100% correct. Targeting fouls as well as other "dirty plays" should be sent to the SEC office on Saturday night for review and suspensions handed out from there. The hits need to be removed, but mandatory suspension based on live action fouls which are decided in seconds isn't fair. An officiating crew should only be in control of the game they're calling.

 

[Bigun]

Never understood why they eject for targeting because of "player safety" "hitting a defenseless player" but yet a late hit out of bounds when a player is vulnerable to injury is just a 15yd penalty and not even reviewed.

 

[99gator]

I don’t think targeting should get an ejection

 

[Lawrence Wright]

I don’t think targeting should get an ejection

Unless there’s clear intent...same goes for players intentionally twisting ankles in the pile.

 

[BigBadVol]

The targeting rule is going to ruin the game if something isn't done. It is never applied evenly.

 

[Quaint88]

The part that bugs me is that, if the defender keeps his head at the same level the whole time but the ball-carrier lowers his head at the last moment, the refs may still call targeting on the defender.

I especially hate that they'll call it when a QB tries to slide too late to get down before the hit. If you're not down yet, you're fair game for contact. If you don't want to be hit, don't take off with the football (or play football). Starting to slide is not the same as being down, and no defender should have to guess whether that's what's happening in a split second. Choosing not to defend yourself isn't the same as being defenseless.

 

[TNnative]

Target in the first minute of a half... you are out for 59 minutes (remainder of half and all next half). Target in last minute of half... you are out roughly 30 minutes ( remaining seconds of half and all the next half). So the severity of the penalty depends on WHEN it occurs, not simply that it did occur.

Furthermore, there is no allowance for obvious intent or obvious lack thereof.

If the NCAA insists on making it a penalty, why not standardize the penalty... say, 15 yrds and 15 minutes on the bench (similar to the penalty box in hockey)?

How about finding the jerk who coined the term, and making the remainder of his life a living Hell? I am all for player safety, but the best way to cure the problem is to train players on safe tackling techniques. But there are more dangerous blows than targeting. Let the replay officials review film, and call the head ref to stop play when they decide a tackle or blow was dangerous and malicious. That would have applied to the center for Georgia who broke Shy Tuttle's leg.

They need a better approach. Call a personal foul, and don't eject the player. Let the NCAA and conference commissioner's review the play. Since technology is being used to review it, let the player defend his actions in a teleconference on the Tuesday evening after the game. If they find after careful review and hearing all sides it was not malicious, so be it. But if he has a history of it, they could suspend him for more than one game. Doing that would put an end to stoppages of play, and it would get players attentions.

I truly believe those making rules for NCAA football are dumber than a bag of hammers.

 

[sjt18]

You introduce even more judgment but there should be at least two varieties. The more "incidental" should get a penalty and maybe even a "penalty box" type of sit out. The flagrant ones should result in ejection.

Maybe allow a player a total of 5 or 6 before they're disqualified for the seasons.

 

[McDad]

Targeting is the act of hitting a defenseless player in the head area? Is the definition more expanded?

I am all for limiting the hits to the brain bucket. But unless the foul is egregious, it is always a judgement call. The judgement calls are what is ruining the game, imo.

 

[jboyinmiss]

There was a targeting call late in the KY FLA game that I believe affected the outcome of that game

 

[Volunteer08]

Agreed, this rule needs a lot of work. I haven't spent the time/not smart enough to know the answer, but when you have the ability for a bad call to affect not just the game you are in, but next week's game too?? That's out of control.

While I agree that the current rule isn't great and needs work, I do believe they got one thing right. That is, I think the penalty is great enough for players to be conscious of how they're using their helmet when tackling.

 

[JettVol]

Unless there’s clear intent...same goes for players intentionally twisting ankles in the pile.

Very true. There is a difference in a helmet to helmet on a RB or QB when the defender is making a play on the ball and can't stop his momentum, and then a guy going up top on a receiver when the ball was thrown 10 feet above his head and he levels him. But to the above posters point, its not really fair for a referee to have to make a split second decision that determines a players future for the remainder of the game and possibly the next game too.

Side note, how many players are sitting out this week either 1st half or game due to targeting against UK? I thought I saw one or two but I know UK had a couple also.....

 

[JettVol]

Unless there’s clear intent...same goes for players intentionally twisting ankles in the pile.

Is Zugina going to play Saturday?

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Is Zugina going to play Saturday?

If he plays, he won’t be 100%.

 

[McDad]

Only way to reduce the number of hits to the head by the helmet of another player is to put them back in soft helmets. Welcome the return of the leather dome.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Very true. There is a difference in a helmet to helmet on a RB or QB when the defender is making a play on the ball and can't stop his momentum, and then a guy going up top on a receiver when the ball was thrown 10 feet above his head and he levels him. But to the above posters point, its not really fair for a referee to have to make a split second decision that determines a players future for the remainder of the game and possibly the next game too.

Side note, how many players are sitting out this week either 1st half or game due to targeting against UK? I thought I saw one or two but I know UK had a couple also.....

Our FS Donovan Stiner is out.

 

[piratelifeforme]

What I dont understand is the RB never gets called for it when he lower his helmet to hit a player trying to tackle him. Why cant the offense target? A defensive player has his head up and is trying to make a proper tackle and the RB lower the crown of his helmet and bangs into the defensive player should be called the same way.

 

[m1al]

Personally I’ve never liked the rule. That being said, maybe treat it like an ‘unsportsmanlike‘. You get the benefit of doubt on the first, the second one, you’re gone.

 

[ClockworkOrange]

What I would immediately institute is a 2nd strike and you're out rule. First targeting is a regular 15-yarder, then toss them on the second one. That would give a little breathing room and a sane "middle ground" until you could figure out what to ultimately do about it.

OR, make the first instance a 15-yarder. But then they have to play the remainder of the game sans helmet.

 

[TNnative]

You introduce even more judgment but there should be at least two varieties. The more "incidental" should get a penalty and maybe even a "penalty box" type of sit out. The flagrant ones should result in ejection.

Maybe allow a player a total of 5 or 6 before they're disqualified for the seasons.

It depends on the offenses. Not so much a set number. They already have a two personal foul and ejection rule. All that idea does is further complicate the game, and puts more on the official's plate, increasing the likelihood of bad calls. And this isn't hockey. Next thing you know, some soccer fan will be calling for red cards. Quit trying to intermix sports rules. Watch the opening of Baseketball. It shows just how out of hand it can get.

Adding varieties to the equation just drags the game out. Speed it up, and we all get to watch an extra game on Saturday. Handling it a few days later means the incident is reviewed from all angles. The player and his coach can defend his actions. If the opposing player was injured, that comes into play. The officials who called the game can review the call as a group. This could also be a situation that dangerous calls missed by officials are reviewed if they or the opponent's finds one on film review, and that player doesn't get away with it. And in a reality TV world, player hearings coverage would be a must watch show. Maybe not live feeds, but a report from either the conference networks, or on whichever network that wins the bidding war. Shows like Big Brother and America's got talent won't like it, but how many football fans watch that?

In the end, we have a better, faster, and safer game, more just decisions, and those who go to the game spent less time being scrunched between two people with big butts. Fewer hip replacements. Get out of the stadium and drink better and cheaper beer. Fewer headaches because radio listeners get less Bob Kesling. The advantages are endless.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Target in the first minute of a half... you are out for 59 minutes (remainder of half and all next half). Target in last minute of half... you are out roughly 30 minutes ( remaining seconds of half and all the next half). So the severity of the penalty depends on WHEN it occurs, not simply that it did occur.

Furthermore, there is no allowance for obvious intent or obvious lack thereof.

If the NCAA insists on making it a penalty, why not standardize the penalty... say, 15 yrds and 15 minutes on the bench (similar to the penalty box in hockey)?

I've always thought the element of intent should be considered. 15 yard penalty unless upon review it is deemed intentional. If so a 60 minute suspension should be incurred including remainder of this game and into the next. Second offense next three games suspension including bowl or playoff and into next season.

 

[TNnative]

What I would immediately institute is a 2nd strike and you're out rule. First targeting is a regular 15-yarder, then toss them on the second one. That would give a little breathing room and a sane "middle ground" until you could figure out what to ultimately do about it.

OR, make the first instance a 15-yarder. But then they have to play the remainder of the game sans helmet.

They already eject for two personal fouls. Sans helmet? Don't try amateur night at the comedy club. I will be selling tomatoes and eggs at the door.

 

[Hunerwadel]

What I dont understand is the RB never gets called for it when he lower his helmet to hit a player trying to tackle him. Why cant the offense target? A defensive player has his head up and is trying to make a proper tackle and the RB lower the crown of his helmet and bangs into the defensive player should be called the same way.

Yes it is called. I used to wonder about that too until I saw it last weekend. I don't remember which game because I was flipping around. RB lowered his head right into the chin strap of the defender.