Targeting call

#26
#26
vol-un-tear said:
The RB was low. They really had no choice other than jumping on his back
Click to expand...
I think if the RB lowers his head first it should not be called. If you are approaching the ball carrier and you see them start to lower their head, you are going to instinctively do the same. Until they get rid of the hardshell helmet this will continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vol-un-tear
#28
#28
Off topic, but my boy Nigel Warrior came to play, as usual. He is a hitter. I named my cat after him before he even suited up in Orange.
 
#30
#30
t wasn't targeting, he wasn't "defenseless". If you behave like a ram on offense, it's game on.


Completely agree.
 
#31
#31
cHiZzLeVOL said:
He lowered his helmet to make the tackle. It is not illegal to lower your helmet and drive your shoulder through a defender. The contact came as the runner stopped his momentum and Lowered his head and changed direction. That’s how they ended up hitting heads. If he (the offensive player) wouldn’t of lowered his head the defenders head would have never of made contact.

Edit: When he ducked his head where exactly was the defender supposed to be able to attack cleanly? Because the only point that could be attacked was the head.
Click to expand...
From what I saw, 35 lead with his helmet. Thats targeting. Sucks that he is put the 1st half, but we all knew the rule going into it. Doesnt matter if we like it or not.
 
#32
#32
volfannbama said:
From what I saw, 35 lead with his helmet. Thats targeting. Sucks that he is put the 1st half, but we all knew the rule going into it. Doesnt matter if we like it or not.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree about the knowing the rule stuff.

What I do disagree about the rule is intentional and unintentional targeting. You should not be suspended from a game (quarters of a game) the next week for an unintentional targeting penalty.

If it is vicious and looks to be intentional you should definitely be suspended from the next game for however long the rule states.

But that’s just my opinion.
 
#33
#33
cHiZzLeVOL said:
I don’t disagree about the knowing the rule stuff.

What I do disagree about the rule is intentional and unintentional targeting. You should not be suspended from a game (quarters of a game) the next week for an unintentional targeting penalty.

If it is vicious and looks to be intentional you should definitely be suspended from the next game for however long the rule states.

But that’s just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean I see where you are coming from. I just think they have made it clear they are going to err on the side of cautious for it. So sucks, but its there until its changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cHiZzLeVOL
#34
#34
BartW said:
On the Auburn boards they think it was an intentional bad call to help bama next week
Click to expand...
I couldn’t imagine Auburn doing anything to Alabama. Plus, Quart’e Sapp, Ignot and DK should be able to control linebacker play for the first half next week!
 
#36
#36
GAVol said:
Intent doesn't matter. You lead with the head above the shoulders and it's going to get flagged.

I think they should make exceptions for a ball carrier lowering his head since he's not really defenseless, but until they do....
Click to expand...
It should though. There should have to be intent involved to be considered targeting. The word itself implies intent. I'm fine if they want to call the helmet to helmet a 15 yard PF, but it shouldn't include an ejection.

On that note, this stopping play to go fishing for targeting calls needs to stop. If it wasn't obvious to the ref who was looking right at the play then it wasn't targeting.
 
#37
#37
Oh yeah, and what about that in bounds catch where the dern clock stopped too! Same drive, trying to give the already beaten a fighting chance.
 
#38
#38
The kid will sit out the first half against bama. Not that would help much anyway. This could be one of Saban’s best teams.
 
#39
#39
GAVol said:
You lead with the head above the shoulders and it's going to get flagged.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There are lots of times when it's not called. And if it was so obvious, why didn't the crew on the field call it in real-time? Why did they have to blow the whistle after the next play had already started, so they could take 5 minutes to watch the replay from every angle before finally making up their minds?

Bituli was doing what you would expect him to do. He was doing his job, squaring up and getting low to bring down the ball carrier. The ball carrier lowered his head, too, which resulted in the helmet-to-helmet contact. But the targeting rule goes farther than that. The targeting rule is meant to punish intent. Sometimes it's hard to judge intent and sometimes it's not. They ignored the fact that Bituli was one of 3 Vols who arrived at the same time. They could have called Bituli for targeting Kirkland, too, since their helmets also contacted each other.

It was a judgement call and they should have either made it on the field or called it from the booth before the snap of the next play.

Also, I remember last season they couldn't call the PF retroactively. They could make a ruling on targeting, but they couldn't assess the 15-yard penalty. I assume they must have changed that rule?
 
#40
#40
Ashevillevol said:
It’s a hard call when the defender lowers his head , even with eyes up, and then the ball carrier lowers his head and it ends up being helmet to helmet
Click to expand...
Exactly, if the defensive player is in position first, and the offensive player lowers his head afterward the penatly SHOULD NEVER fall on the defensive player. It is non-sense.
 
#41
#41
It was targeting under the current rule. You don't have launch and the offensive player doesn't have to be helpless. If you lead with the helmet into the head/upper body, it's targeting.

I don't like the rule as is. I understand what they are trying to do, and agree something needs to be done. But, the current rule is too ambiguous and they don't call it consistantly. We've had a several blatant targetting hits that went uncalled this season.

They need to establish a targeting 1 and 2, like flagrant fouls in basketball. One is a penalty, the other results in ejection. They also need to make a provision for the offensive player lowering his head. You can't tell me some aren't doing it intentionally to draw flags.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol
#42
#42
Yep that was my biggest problem, they blew they next play dead halfway though to retro actively make the call as well as add way more additional time to the clock.
 
#43
#43
Concussions and CTE are ruining the game. Story in the paper yesterday Coalfield had to cancel the rest of their season because they didn't have enough players for the last few games, a few injuries and they had basically no depth. Youth participation is way down, the game will die if there isn't some attempt to make it safer. Its really no different than the change from no pads, no face-masks, leather helmets, etc. Back when those changes occured they were 'ruining' the game.
 
#44
#44
The intent of the rule has gone off the rails. A defenseless player, or an intended targeting is one thing, but a player running wide open and lowering his head makes it almost impossible for defensive players to pull up. Almost any offensive player can cause this call to be made, and it really hurts a team to lose a player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kayman1
#45
#45
I do not like the rule change that allows the replay official to call targeting when it wasn't called on the field....

Especially when the replay official cannot call other penalties after the fact.....

I didn't think the targeting call on the Auburn player was correct...or fair... If they keep calling what he did targeting, then those blitzing backside CB or S are going to begin to hit the QB low--which will lead to more knee injuries.

I thought that Bituli was guilty as the rule is written--but as I said above....none of the officials on the field called it, and the replay guy should NOT be able to call it after the fact.
 
#46
#46
GAVol said:
They've got to know that they can't hit anybody head down. It's going to get called.
Click to expand...
This and if half the people that complain about targeting knew what the rules state they would PROBABLY realize they were wrong but for some maybe not. Its NOT just hitting your opponent in the helmet but also if you lower your head lead with and contact anything (Ribs, chest, hips, thighs etc...)with the crown of your helmet it is a penalty. It was as much about protecting offensive "helpless" players but also to incentivize defensive players to not lower their heads and break their own neck/ concuss themselves.
That being said I do think there is some room for improvement in the rule when a defender does make contact with the offense's head but the offense was bobbing weaving or lowering the head themselves they should lose that personal foul 15 yard and certainly the ejection and go with something like the 5 yard facemask or running into the kicker in lieu of roughing. Saying it a different way if the offense maintained a fairly consistent stature and they get hit in the head or the defender hits anyone with the top of their helmet =15 yard w/ targeting, but if the offense lowers at last second, jukes or spins into a defender then no penalty or 5 yarder.
 
#47
#47
I can’t imagine what would happen if they asked the officials to attempt to decide whether or not the defender was intentional. There’s just no way. The accusations would be off the charts. You think it’s bad now? That would be impossible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol
#48
#48
MSCE09 said:
Concussions and CTE are ruining the game. Story in the paper yesterday Coalfield had to cancel the rest of their season because they didn't have enough players for the last few games, a few injuries and they had basically no depth. Youth participation is way down, the game will die if there isn't some attempt to make it safer. Its really no different than the change from no pads, no face-masks, leather helmets, etc. Back when those changes occured they were 'ruining' the game.
Click to expand...
Might as well ban tackling and go to 2 hand touch then
 
  • Like
Reactions: kayman1
#49
#49
I dont think they should be suspended based on one play. If the same guy repeatedly gets called, maybe, but one play shouldn't warrant a suspension for the next game.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top