Targeting Rule..too harsh - how would you change it?

[ptcarter]

After watching tons of football since this rule came into effect - I hope some changes happen. The first real stupid part of this rule (that was changed) was that when it first came on the scene, if the targeting was overruled, the penalty was still 15 yards. Thank goodness they woke up and changed that.

My thoughts- The intent of the rule is player safety. To change the way a player tackles and not lead with his head. Players know that, however a majority of targeting calls are on players where there wasn't motivation to hurt the runner, just that in real time, the runner ducks his head into the path of an oncoming tackler. So the punishment - ejection. If it happens 1 minute into the 3rd quarter, the player misses two halves of football, and in most cases - it couldn't be prevented.

They used to have a rule about a facemask penalty - incidental or intentional, the former being a 5 yard penalty and the latter being 15. I think targeting needs the same type of categorization, and if incidental - put a clock on the time the player sits, much like a penalty box in hockey. 10 minutes - 15 minutes.. I dunno. In the case of intentional, keep the rule as it stands.

Bituli against Alabama comes to mind. That was a player on the two yardline about to score that was going low. Without that hit, the player could have easily stretched it into more yardage and perhaps a touchdown. Yes, it fit the definition, but what I see is a player that's job is to tackle a guy going for the end zone. Mentally for him, it's hard to check himself and ask himself, "Gosh, am I gonna hurt this guy when I hit him?"

I hate to see a player get tossed for a hit like that. Sure, throw the flag. Roughing the passer comes to mind. A much needed rule, but they don't eject the player every time that happens.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

The first thing I would change is they need to stop ejecting after 1 hit. I think that's ridiculous. Unless you can see obvious intent to hurt or it's so outrageous of a target/late hit, they need to stop ejecting. I also agree that they need to start taking into account what the offensive player is doing, i.e. leading with their crown. I've yet to see that called but they need to start calling that too. You can't punish a defensive player for turning his head into a weapon and not punish the offensive player for the same thing.

The one thing I keep seeing that I don't disagree with is players keep lowering their head and hitting with their crown. They have to stop doing that. I don't care if they've been taught that or not, it's pretty simple, teach to keep your head up. I see so many complain about that being called but that part I have zero problems with.

 

[ptcarter]

I also agree that they need to start taking into account what the offensive player is doing, i.e. leading with their crown.

Another crazy rule, a runner can throw a defender to the ground with a stiff arm facemask, and not get called for facemask. Seen that a few times.

The one thing I keep seeing that I don't disagree with is players keep lowering their head and hitting with their crown. They have to stop doing that. I don't care if they've been taught that or not, it's pretty simple, teach to keep your head up. I see so many complain about that being called but that part I have zero problems with.

I agree.. however there are cases where, when the tackler has to go low, say a QB sneak, or where a runner has been hit, but maybe putting his hand down to keep his knee off the ground. Hard to not lead with your head when the target is lower than your shoulders.

One more thing that get's me is when the announcers say "He Launched".. Lots of good clean tackles involve launching - it is NOT a malicious action in and of itself.

 

[BeecherVol]

Get rid of the ejection after 1 hit. If you want to go with 2 then eject that's fine.

I understand that you have to have a detailed description to enforce the rule and take out as much opinion as you can, but each play is different and intent has to carry most of the weight. IMO.

The fact is your going to have guys hit in the helmet as long as the game is played as tackle. Kicking a guy out for 1 hit doesnt take the hit back or create safety. All it does is penalize the hit. It can be a safer game with a better rule.

 

[volinbham]

If it wasn't seen in the play and flagged why go back to review to look for it?

I could swear the ref said they were reviewing to see if Jeudy scored but in reality they were looking to see if targeting took place.

 

[UTK]

1. Only eject after 2nd time.

2. No ejection can carry on to another game. That's just dumb.

3. Use freaking common sense. If an offensive player lowers his head, the defensive player shouldn't be guilty. Quit following the rules so literal, and use your damn head.

 

[LouderVol]

1. Only eject after 2nd time.

2. No ejection can carry on to another game. That's just dumb.

3. Use freaking common sense. If an offensive player lowers his head, the defensive player shouldn't be guilty. Quit following the rules so literal, and use your damn head.

That's what they want to stop....lol.

 

[AllVols]

I say they need to hold the offensive player accountable as well. If he lowers his head why isn't he kicked out of the game as well? why should the defensive player be expected to get run over and move out of the way to avoid a possible collision of helmets. I think if feel if they want to keep this rule, both players leave the game.

 

[hog88]

Quickest way to "fix" targeting is to put them back into leather helmets with no facemask but that's not happening.

IMO ejections should only be after the 2nd call and not carry over to the next game. Also if it's not called on the field play shouldn't be stopped by the booth for a review.

 

[BeecherVol]

If it wasn't seen in the play and flagged why go back to review to look for it?

I could swear the ref said they were reviewing to see if Jeudy scored but in reality they were looking to see if targeting took place.

He went MMA straight arm after the hit. But in the name of safety we kicked the guy out that hit him, made some adjustments to his helmet and throwed him back out there.

 

[Knox-a-rue]

Should call it on more offensive players. I think I've seen it called on an offensive player once in the NFL. I know it happens occasionally. I dont know if it happens, or can happen by rules, in college. If he drops his head and initiates what becomes a forcible head to head/neck contact, he should be held accountable. I think this would help decrease the incidences of what happened with Bituli Saturday.

 

[ptcarter]

Should call it on more offensive players. I think I've seen it called on an offensive player once in the NFL. I know it happens occasionally. I dont know if it happens, or can happen by rules, in college. If he drops his head and initiates what becomes a forcible head to head/neck contact, he should be held accountable. I think this would help decrease the incidences of what happened with Bituli Saturday.

In Bituli's situation, I think it's a shame the penalty was called, even if they could flag the Bama runner. Why? Because each was doing what they have been practicing for the whole of their football careers. The Bama runner was trying as hard as he could to get in the end zone and Bituli was trying as hard as he could to stop him. No malicious (cheap shot) intent for either, yet Bituli get's tossed because they bumped heads. Damn shame.

 

[LouderVol]

Should call it on more offensive players. I think I've seen it called on an offensive player once in the NFL. I know it happens occasionally. I dont know if it happens, or can happen by rules, in college. If he drops his head and initiates what becomes a forcible head to head/neck contact, he should be held accountable. I think this would help decrease the incidences of what happened with Bituli Saturday.

didnt Wayna get one against UTC or someone?

 

[ptcarter]

didnt Wayna get one against UTC or someone?

I think you're right. Can't remember exactly what he did.

 

[landscapingvol]

After watching tons of football since this rule came into effect - I hope some changes happen. The first real stupid part of this rule (that was changed) was that when it first came on the scene, if the targeting was overruled, the penalty was still 15 yards. Thank goodness they woke up and changed that.

My thoughts- The intent of the rule is player safety. To change the way a player tackles and not lead with his head. Players know that, however a majority of targeting calls are on players where there wasn't motivation to hurt the runner, just that in real time, the runner ducks his head into the path of an oncoming tackler. So the punishment - ejection. If it happens 1 minute into the 3rd quarter, the player misses two halves of football, and in most cases - it couldn't be prevented.

They used to have a rule about a facemask penalty - incidental or intentional, the former being a 5 yard penalty and the latter being 15. I think targeting needs the same type of categorization, and if incidental - put a clock on the time the player sits, much like a penalty box in hockey. 10 minutes - 15 minutes.. I dunno. In the case of intentional, keep the rule as it stands.

Bituli against Alabama comes to mind. That was a player on the two yardline about to score that was going low. Without that hit, the player could have easily stretched it into more yardage and perhaps a touchdown. Yes, it fit the definition, but what I see is a player that's job is to tackle a guy going for the end zone. Mentally for him, it's hard to check himself and ask himself, "Gosh, am I gonna hurt this guy when I hit him?"

I hate to see a player get tossed for a hit like that. Sure, throw the flag. Roughing the passer comes to mind. A much needed rule, but they don't eject the player every time that happens.

It doesn’t need to exist and I would be curious to see if it has even cut down on head or neck injuries. You can still flag individuals for launching themselves or forceable helmet to helmet contact without having a ridiculous targeting rule that isn’t uniformly interpreted even with replay review

 

[LouderVol]

I think you're right. Can't remember exactly what he did.

Someone got past him on the edge, he turned around and blasted him. It was kinda a blindside hit as I remember. Definitely hit with the helmet

 

[ptcarter]

Someone got past him on the edge, he turned around and blasted him. It was kinda a blindside hit as I remember. Definitely hit with the helmet

Ah yes.. I remember now. In this case, I think the flow of the play had slowed and he lowered the boom. Probably justified here.
By the way.. much of what goes on in the trenches is intimidation and "alpha male" - trying to live rent free in the head of your opponent (you see this a lot with wide receivers and cornerbacks in trash talk after a play).. Yep, some of that here. Doug Mathews says the big guys need to have a little "nasty" in them. Take Reggie White - he wasn't Nasty off the field... A preacher.. But he'd intimidate his opponent on a grand scale. Gotta have some of that.

 

[bamawriter]

In Bituli's situation, I think it's a shame the penalty was called, even if they could flag the Bama runner. Why? Because each was doing what they have been practicing for the whole of their football careers. The Bama runner was trying as hard as he could to get in the end zone and Bituli was trying as hard as he could to stop him. No malicious (cheap shot) intent for either, yet Bituli get's tossed because they bumped heads. Damn shame.

While I agree that there was no intent on Bituli's part, and certainly no malice, that hit is exactly what they're trying to get out of the game. He lowered his head after Jeudy started diving and made contact with the crown of his helmet directly into Jeudy's head. His head was so lowered, in fact, that he was looking at the ground instead of his target. You should never tackle something you can't see. He's genuinely lucky that he didn't hurt himself, let alone what might have happened to Jeudy.

 

[ptcarter]

While I agree that there was no intent on Bituli's part, and certainly no malice, that hit is exactly what they're trying to get out of the game. He lowered his head after Jeudy started diving and made contact with the crown of his helmet directly into Jeudy's head. His head was so lowered, in fact, that he was looking at the ground instead of his target. You should never tackle something you can't see. He's genuinely lucky that he didn't hurt himself, let alone what might have happened to Jeudy.

I wholeheartedly agree that this is the definition of "targeting". Really fine line here.. and terminology is skewed a bit. The word "targeting" conjures up images of an Indian brave with bow shooting towards game. It means. "Taking aim at a target". I think Bituli was just trying to tackle the guy - he didn't take aim with his head and aim for the other guys head.

Roughing the quarterback is dangerous too. Why not toss for that?

I think there is accidental "targeting" and purposeful "targeting", and if this was accidental, is being tossed out of a game extreme?

 

[bamawriter]

I wholeheartedly agree that this is the definition of "targeting". Really fine line here.. and terminology is skewed a bit. The word "targeting" conjures up images of an Indian brave with bow shooting towards game. It means. "Taking aim at a target". I think Bituli was just trying to tackle the guy - he didn't take aim with his head and aim for the other guys head.

Roughing the quarterback is dangerous too. Why not toss for that?

I think there is accidental "targeting" and purposeful "targeting", and if this was accidental, is being tossed out of a game extreme?

I certainly won't argue that last question. The rule is problematic from top to bottom. But, even if targeting is "accidental" or otherwise lacking intent, the purpose of the rule is to protect the tackler as much as the tackled. Bituli could have hurt himself quite easily on that play. If the result of the rule is that tacklers do a better job keeping their heads up, then that's a pretty good result.

 

[ptcarter]

I certainly won't argue that last question. The rule is problematic from top to bottom. But, even if targeting is "accidental" or otherwise lacking intent, the purpose of the rule is to protect the tackler as much as the tackled. Bituli could have hurt himself quite easily on that play. If the result of the rule is that tacklers do a better job keeping their heads up, then that's a pretty good result.

Agree to some extent. If you look at this play though, there was "heat of the moment". Ball carrier 2 yards from the stripe, both going full bore and runner going low. Making a conscious tackling "check myself" decision was the last thing on his mind. There are physics in play - momentum, balance, leverage, and when the bulk of the runner is below shoulder or even waist level, it's hard to compensate.. not to mention the runners head was a moving target too. Unavoidable really, unless you just stop and give the guy a touchdown because you stop and think that there is a chance your heads might collide.

This isn't just this one play that this discussion is about. It's just an example. I like the intent of the rule, but it's a little overboard on the punishment. Why not add roughing the QB to it, or late hit out of bounds.. Toss players for those too.. They are dangerous too.

 

[bamawriter]

This isn't just this one play that this discussion is about. It's just an example. I like the intent of the rule, but it's a little overboard on the punishment. Why not add roughing the QB to it, or late hit out of bounds.. Toss players for those too.. They are dangerous too.

I see your point. But those plays aren't as fundamentally dangerous as head-to-head contact.

 

[ptcarter]

I see your point. But those plays aren't as fundamentally dangerous as head-to-head contact.

It wouldn't surprise me if that sometime in the future, they put some more constraints on things like roughing.. I can't see them loosening up any rule.. precedent set and if they DID actually take the ejection out.. I think there is the fear of a lawsuit if someone got hurt bad. Alexander Shunahara waiting in the tunnel.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

After watching tons of football since this rule came into effect - I hope some changes happen. The first real stupid part of this rule (that was changed) was that when it first came on the scene, if the targeting was overruled, the penalty was still 15 yards. Thank goodness they woke up and changed that.

My thoughts- The intent of the rule is player safety. To change the way a player tackles and not lead with his head. Players know that, however a majority of targeting calls are on players where there wasn't motivation to hurt the runner, just that in real time, the runner ducks his head into the path of an oncoming tackler. So the punishment - ejection. If it happens 1 minute into the 3rd quarter, the player misses two halves of football, and in most cases - it couldn't be prevented.

They used to have a rule about a facemask penalty - incidental or intentional, the former being a 5 yard penalty and the latter being 15. I think targeting needs the same type of categorization, and if incidental - put a clock on the time the player sits, much like a penalty box in hockey. 10 minutes - 15 minutes.. I dunno. In the case of intentional, keep the rule as it stands.

Bituli against Alabama comes to mind. That was a player on the two yardline about to score that was going low. Without that hit, the player could have easily stretched it into more yardage and perhaps a touchdown. Yes, it fit the definition, but what I see is a player that's job is to tackle a guy going for the end zone. Mentally for him, it's hard to check himself and ask himself, "Gosh, am I gonna hurt this guy when I hit him?"

I hate to see a player get tossed for a hit like that. Sure, throw the flag. Roughing the passer comes to mind. A much needed rule, but they don't eject the player every time that happens.

Eliminate the helmets. Simple, fast and would 100% solve the problem.

 

[ptcarter]

Eliminate the helmets. Simple, fast and would 100% solve the problem.

My buddies on the Rugby team agree.