So targeting is....

#103
#103
allenrikvik said:
Targeting (called spearing when I was playing) is a real issue. This current application is just BS and will kill the game. These are call are so subjective and literally change the outcome of the games.
Click to expand...
I think to make the call is fine, but in a video review they should be able to change it to a lesser charge. The targeting call against Brian last week should have been reduced to roughing the passer or unnecessary roughness. As it stands now, it DOES give the impression if not the downright ability for the refs to be corrupt. 'Yeah, I'll throw a flag, but I know that it will be overturned. At least it LOOKS like I am being fair and impartial.... Roll TIde!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#104
#104
VolinMichigan said:
That doesn’t Have to be part of the game. There is a place for targeting, but the rule’s application is what’s wrong. Too many factors go into a play that it’s almost impossible to apply the rule fairly except in cases where it’s obvious.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not advocating for it. I believe there needs to be some element of intent before it is considered targeting and disqualification. Maybe a hockey style penalty box.
 
#105
#105
Is "intent" not a factor? To me an inadvertent helmet should be different than someone trying to take their head off or hitting with no regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#106
#106
basspond said:
Is "intent" not a factor? To me an inadvertent helmet should be different than someone trying to take their head off or hitting with no regard.
Click to expand...
Not %100 but I'm pretty certain it's not factored.

Every target is reviewed. Has to be overwhelming evidence to reverse a flag. So it seems as if there is any helmet to helmet contact the call stands.
Or if the view is obstructed against bama it can be argued Bituili has a Go-Go Gadget neck that somehow made contact.
 
#107
#107
Hunerwadel said:
I'm certainly not advocating for it. I believe there needs to be some element of intent before it is considered targeting and disqualification. Maybe a hockey style penalty box.
Click to expand...
Why not put em in a stockade for a play near the opposing teams fans? Hand out lettuce and tomatoes to be thrown. It would be awesome!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrankenVol54 and Hunerwadel
#109
#109
KingtUT said:
They might as well put flags around their waists because you cant tackle anybody anymore. Its pathetic
Click to expand...

I disagree. If you are wearing the correct uniform, you can target, drag facemasks, and generally do whatever you want with no consequences. Sadly that uniform needs to be some shade of crimson or maroon. If only it were orange instead...
 
#110
#110
From what I recall and how I saw the play, was he lowered his head to put his face mask to the upper chest, text book. However top of the helmet caught the opposing face mask throwing his helmet back. The rule needs to be more subjective as to whether there was real intent and malice because that was a BS call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#111
#111
A couple of thoughts....

It was targeting by the rule.

The rule sucks.

It does not seem to be called evenly for all teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#113
#113
swampfoxfan said:
Once JJ caught the ball it was a TD, play over, should have drawn a flag, JG was hit 3 steps after release,there was no pull up by the defender, should have been a flag.
Click to expand...
You can maybe argue that the JG hit was slightly late, but it was basically a hard form tackle.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the hit on JJ. That hit was nearly simultaneous to the catch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jacvols
#115
#115
2862B137-6656-4951-A864-A0B256784BA9.png
Using the crown of the helmet on a defenseless player is the definition of targeting. That’s why it was confirmed. Pruitt and anyone else arguing that it wasn’t is wrong. He

46CB0082-D1DE-4BBC-BA32-3F66F8D3D89C.pngalso launches himself
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4chrissy
#116
#116
ThreatLevelOrange said:
Lowering your head to tackle the ball carrier OR hitting the ball carrier in the helmet, regardless of whether you drop your head.

The “rules analysts” are worthless. Middleton did not drop his head, but he did hit the QB in the helmet. Clearly, folks are confused.
Click to expand...
Anytime a Tennessee player makes a great tackle!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4chrissy
#119
#119
By the rules, the hit can meet the definition of targeting.

By my rules, the rule about targeting can meet the definition of being utter crap.
 
#121
#121
basspond said:
Is "intent" not a factor? To me an inadvertent helmet should be different than someone trying to take their head off or hitting with no regard.
Click to expand...

These clowns can't even get the simple targeting rule correct. There's no way if you add sub-factors they will call it correct.
 
#122
#122
joshwa said:
The easy call to make on that down was intentional grounding. No way targeting should've been called.
Click to expand...

It's easy to see to don't understand football. Noted.

Post #115 show it perfectly from 2 angles. It was called, reviewed, and CONFIRMED....
 
#124
#124
Targeting was the hit on JG. Middleton”s was a football play, he didn’t launch into the QB and or strike with the crown of the helmet.
 
#125
#125
If we really care about CTE to the point where we don’t want to see any head-to-head contact, then we need to just stop playing football. It’s too hard to play without conking heads occasionally.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top