Sick of these targeting calls

#1

SandoVOL

Lurkmode [on] off
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
8,072
Likes
1,504
#1
LSU vs Bama just had a targeting call overturned, yet it was clearly contact helmet to helmet, although unintentional. A Taylor had similar play and was thrown out of the game. Not only is this penalty over the top ridiculous, but it is so inconsistent in it's enforcement that the refs can practically choose who they do and do not want to eject from the football game. What will it take to get this targeting penalty nailed down?
 
#4
#4
LSU vs Bama just had a targeting call overturned, yet it was clearly contact helmet to helmet, although unintentional. A Taylor had similar play and was thrown out of the game. Not only is this penalty over the top ridiculous, but it is so inconsistent in it's enforcement that the refs can practically choose who they do and do not want to eject from the football game. What will it take to get this targeting penalty nailed down?
Taylor’s hit was on a QB who was in the process of sliding and the LSU hit was on a Bama player making a football move.
 
#5
#5
Should be more of a judgement call. I'd rather it be more of a defenseless player call than analyzing if a helmet slides up, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: guido4198
#6
#6
Should be more of a judgement call. I'd rather it be more of a defenseless player call than analyzing if a helmet slides up, etc
I agree it should only be on a defenseless player or like in the Taylor hit today when the QB is sliding.
 
#7
#7
Targeting is stupid. Need to have a five yard penalty version and an unsportsmanlike version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guido4198
#8
#8
Taylor’s hit was on a QB who was in the process of sliding and the LSU hit was on a Bama player making a football move.
What about the problem that Taylor was already in the tackling position before the QB started the slide? Not only did the slide happen after Taylor's approach but the drop is what cause the helmet collision. It's an impossible situation for some of these defensive plays.
 
#10
#10
It's basically every single game this year. I understand the call if a player is obviously launching with an attempt to spear the opposing guy with his head. However, there are going to be times when heads collide during a normal football play, as the head is precariously positioned atop the shoulders and would-be tackler. I'm fairly certain that is why helmets were invented.
 
#12
#12
I remember years ago when spearing was the penalty du jour.
I haven't seen it called in years. Players will eventually learn to keep their heads up and arms extended while tackling the same way they learned not to use the facemask as a weapon.
 
#13
#13
Funny that they overturned it after Carrville called them out on gameday for ejecting a teams best player before every bama game. Cant make it too obvious now that its been brought to light.
 
#14
#14
The real solution is to go back to leather helmets without facemasks. "Targeting" becomes suicide. No need for penalties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74
#15
#15
I see WAAYYY too many “ targeting” penalties for what used to be just good hard nosed football.
This crap has gotten out of hand. I hope the NCAA takes a real serious look at what’s happening and comes up with a better solution to whatever their problem is.
If they fail to revise the current rule and continue on this trajectory, they might as well just go ahead and ban tackling altogether.
Put little “flags” on everyone and see how they do. Still might not be enough... I mean there’s still going to be sprained ankles, hang nails, etc. to protect against.
 
#16
#16
The refs have to make a judgement call every time a punter goes down. Did the defender kinda sorta accidentally run into the punter or did he level the guy with malice? Basketball officials often have to make a judgement call on whether a foul was flagrant or not.

Not that much difference with targeting, EXCEPT the targeting rule is so overwritten that the ref has to go through a lengthy mental checklist in about a split second and decide. Then the instant replay guys slow it down to determine if what happened at warp speed was bad or really bad.

Guess my solution would be to simplify the rule and have the officials focus more on intent, determine if there was flagrant intent to violate the rule or if it was unintentional. That is part of their job now, but they are focusing more on did the collision violate one of those many letters of the law.

With the replay, they should be able to get it right most of the time. We can't expect 100 percent.
 
#17
#17
Some talk by the commentators during the game (SEC Network broadcast) that the NCAA is considering revising the rule to warn a player for the 1st targeting penalty, and ejecting only after the second offense. Like the unsportsmanlike penalty works now.
 
#18
#18
Taylor’s hit was on a QB who was in the process of sliding and the LSU hit was on a Bama player making a football move.
And Taylor started the “process “ of hitting him at the same time he started the “process “ of sliding, at full speed and his head was about 3’ off the ground when contacted.
Intentions of the rule are great, but it’s the worst rule in football, implemented as is!
 
  • Like
Reactions: guido4198
#20
#20
The rule should be amended so that if the offensive player lowers his head there is no penalty.

I think there should also be offensive targeting if the offensive player leads with the crown if their head. Let's not act like only offensive players get concussions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChattVols55
#21
#21
Only once this year have I seen someone get hurt on the call. The one Vandy guy against Florida was smashed and came back late in the game. The call is robbing players of PT.
 
#22
#22
Some talk by the commentators during the game (SEC Network broadcast) that the NCAA is considering revising the rule to warn a player for the 1st targeting penalty, and ejecting only after the second offense. Like the unsportsmanlike penalty works now.
I could see that as an improvement except that it would be hard to police late in the game when a player has nothing to lose by committing the 1st offense.
 
#23
#23
LSU vs Bama just had a targeting call overturned, yet it was clearly contact helmet to helmet, although unintentional. A Taylor had similar play and was thrown out of the game. Not only is this penalty over the top ridiculous, but it is so inconsistent in it's enforcement that the refs can practically choose who they do and do not want to eject from the football game. What will it take to get this targeting penalty nailed down?
Seems to me they absolutely always throw Tennessee’s players out of the game when their is any question at all... Friday night I saw a Western Kentucky player do way worse and they decided not to throw him out of the game... can’t recall a single time a UT player has not been ejected when they discuss the targeting call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChattVols55
#24
#24
My hope would be that the officials reviewing these plays are instructed to overturn the targeting call if it isn't completely clear and would come down to a judgement call. A lot of these targeting calls are really borderline and I think they should lean towards overturning the call unless it is indisputable on the replay. They are upholding way too many targeting calls that could go either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guido4198
#25
#25
Offensive players are 50% of the problem with these helmet to helmet collisions, yet you could probably count on one hand how many offensive players get called for penalty. This is another issue with this entire targeting problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChattVols55
Advertisement



Back
Top