Sick of these targeting calls

#26
#26
It is like when the taunting/excessive celebration rules went into effect. They called penalties right and left. They will eventually work this out.
 
#27
#27
Targeting is going to stay around due to lawyers now involved with CTE lawsuits. It is not going anywhere.

The problem is the way the rule is interpreted. When you use it to control the outcomes of games to benefit some teams is where it is a problem. No team has benefited from the targeting rule more than Bama. If they are on your schedule for next week then you are getting a targeting call this week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Al Orange
#28
#28
I’d like to see how many targeting calls have gone in our favor. I can’t recall one at the moment. Has anyone ever been ejected for targeting against the Vols?
 
#29
#29
SandoVOL said:
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?
Click to expand...
Someone on another blog has a great Idea, the Yellow Card Rule in Soccer should be used for Targeting. Two Yellow Cards and you are disqualified.
 
#30
#30
Alabama had a clear targeting early in the 3rd, number 32 on the qb or rb, right near the los and it was never called.
 
#31
#31
PineyBluff Vol said:
Someone on another blog has a great Idea, the Yellow Card Rule in Soccer should be used for Targeting. Two Yellow Cards and you are disqualified.
Click to expand...
Since we already have the unsportsmanlike penalty system (2 unsportsmanlike and you are ejected) I think this could be a good solution. Still, I would like to see a better interpretation of the rule and maybe a distinction between incidental contact and actual "spearing" tackles.
 
#32
#32
SandoVOL said:
Since we already have the unsportsmanlike penalty system (2 unsportsmanlike and you are ejected) I think this could be a good solution. Still, I would like to see a better interpretation of the rule and maybe a distinction between incidental contact and actual "spearing" tackles.
Click to expand...
I think they already do the incidental contact. Alabama vs LSU game one was overturned. Quacked Like A Duck, Looked Like A Duck...you understand. Pretty much in the eye of the official looking at the slow mo. Two yellows will remove some of this interpretation business.
 
#33
#33
It needs to be called both ways if they are going to kick kids out of the game. What I mean is if it's a defenseless player then it's on the D player. If the guy running the ball lowers his head trying to pick up yards or punish the D player then it's on the O and they should be kicked out. Not just one way.
 
#34
#34
In the stands, it certainly looked like he dropped his head to lay the hit on him after the QB started the slide. I told my wife it was probably targeting before they tossed the flags. I haven't seen the replay other than what was on the jumbotron, so I am interested in seeing the full play at full speed, but at the time, it didn't seem like it was a necessary hit.

If Charlotte had laid that hit on JG, would you want targeting called?
 
#35
#35
Ejection goes way to far when it was obviously unintentional helmet to helmet. He was just making sure the QB was on the ground can't stop in mid-air terrible rule.
 
#36
#36
peerless98 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe that most players aren't dirty enough to take a cheap shot just for the heck of it. The rule needs to be amended. The very term targeting implies intent. A physical tackle that has an incidental helmet to helmet collision shouldn't result in a penalty. Definitely not an ejection. It should have to be egregious IMO to result in an ejection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SandoVOL
#37
#37
volkyries said:
In the stands, it certainly looked like he dropped his head to lay the hit on him after the QB started the slide. I told my wife it was probably targeting before they tossed the flags. I haven't seen the replay other than what was on the jumbotron, so I am interested in seeing the full play at full speed, but at the time, it didn't seem like it was a necessary hit.

If Charlotte had laid that hit on JG, would you want targeting called?
Click to expand...
Watching on ESPN it looked like Taylor was already coming in at a tackle position before the QB dropped, the guys in the booth even mentioned how they thought it was the right call according to the rule book but a bad situation because Taylor was coming in low looking to wrap up and the booth guy was even a bammer Homer. Some of these plays/penalties helmet collisions are just unavoidable which gives way too much discretion to referees who are reffing different divisions and different teams every week.
 
#38
#38
SandoVOL said:
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?
Click to expand...

Let's all agree on this simple truth:

if it takes a crew 5 minutes studying a slow motion replay to determine if it was targeting or not . . . it wasn't targeting.
 
#39
#39
kiddiedoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like when Chandler was popped in the S.C. game
 
#40
#40
Targeting should only be called when it is obviously intentional. Any time a Player Goes to try and Injure another player; he should be ejected. Otherwise; let them play.
 
#41
#41
Rifleman said:
Let's all agree on this simple truth:

if it takes a crew 5 minutes studying a slow motion replay to determine if it was targeting or not . . . it wasn't targeting.
Click to expand...
That's another thing that really burns me. The replay officials stopping the game to go fishing for targeting penalties. If it wasn't egregious enough to get called on the field then it wasn't targeting
 
#42
#42
musolfmj said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Some professional sports give the governing body of the sport the opportunity to review calls on the field after the game to determine if there was malicious intent. Suspensions can be given one or two days after the game. Why not do that, so the refs don't carry that burden? Just call a penalty during the game without throwing the player out.
 
#43
#43
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
I believe that most players aren't dirty enough to take a cheap shot just for the heck of it. The rule needs to be amended. The very term targeting implies intent. A physical tackle that has an incidental helmet to helmet collision shouldn't result in a penalty. Definitely not an ejection. It should have to be egregious IMO to result in an ejection.
Click to expand...
While that is true, intent does not have to be present for the penalty to be called.
 
#46
#46
It will not get better .. only worse.... You cant fight the Pussification of America... give up now and go Sailing and Island hopping around the Caribbean and living life while you still can.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top