Targeting

#1
J

jboyinmiss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
391
Likes
409
#1
We as football fans need to demand that some changes be made to this targeting rule. I just watched some hilites from yesterdays game and on a rush by Snell into the middle of the line he intentionally lowered his head as he was about to be met headon by our defense. Why is targeting just called on defensive players when ball carriers also lower their heads, and not only but they are allowed to stiffarm to the head area?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCVOL327, MikeTheVol, savannahfan and 5 others
#3
#3
jboyinmiss said:
We as football fans need to demand that some changes be made to this targeting rule. I just watched some hilites from yesterdays game and on a rush by Snell into the middle of the line he intentionally lowered his head as he was about to be met headon by our defense. Why is targeting just called on defensive players when ball carriers also lower their heads, and not only but they are allowed to stiffarm to the head area?
Click to expand...
I agree something needs looked at. I guess they need to protect the players but some of it is ridiculous. I am concerned about players going after knees more than some of the target calls.
 
#4
#4
I totally agree that the rule has to change. Improve the helmet technology, instruct the RBs and WRs to quit lowering their heads.
 
#5
#5
I sure was glad they reversed the one called on Theo, because that was a good solid lick to the guys chest with his head up. But to answer your question maybe because the defensive guy is not defenseless, im not sure really why just a guess.
 
#7
#7
Like many have suggested change it to a Targeting 1 and 2. Don’t automatically eject players unless obviously malicious or no attempt to slow or change angle.

It still sucks and is too subjective but try that for a season or two and see what we get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: savannahfan, Big Al Orange and jboyinmiss
#9
#9
allvol123 said:
Throwing players out for this rule is absurd. Football is being ruined.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. I don't mind there being a provision in place for ejection in the case of an obviously-deliberate dangerous play. However, most of these are bang/bang plays where the offensive guy goes low, ducks his head, or slides at the last second, making head to head contact almost unavoidable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennesseeTarheel and savannahfan
#12
#12
The word targeting implies intent which is often not the case.

What's even more sad is how long it takes the SEC officials to review these plays. You can often tell if there is intent with the live play. The slow-mo plays often harm the intent of the players. They officials could make these determinations within 1 minute if they wanted to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: savannahfan
#14
#14
GulfCoasterVol said:
The "targeting" rule is completely ruining the game of football......no if's, and's or butt's....
Click to expand...
A defenders job is to not allow another inch once he gets there right ?? What’s the best way to do that ? Pow a head on collision. Now don’t get me wrong I’m all for keeping players as safe as possible. If we are going to require shoulder tackles then I say make a 1st down 12 yards to allow for the runners ability to nearly always fall forward on those type tackles. Maybe then the officials would get out of the way and lets the boys play ball.
 
#15
#15
jboyinmiss said:
We as football fans need to demand that some changes be made to this targeting rule. I just watched some hilites from yesterdays game and on a rush by Snell into the middle of the line he intentionally lowered his head as he was about to be met headon by our defense. Why is targeting just called on defensive players when ball carriers also lower their heads, and not only but they are allowed to stiffarm to the head area?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess they could call targeting and let the booth sort out who initiated the helmet to helmet contact...why not...they already review it anyway, and if RB's start to get targeting, maybe they won't lower their heads as much? Don't guess it's going away. What's next...MMA targeting???
 
#16
#16
All of this "ruining football" talk and "put flags on them" is over the top. So you cannot hit a player with the crown of your helmet, launch like a missle at their head, or a hit defenseless player high. I don't like the ejection when the ball carrier lowers their head and some of the ejections are BS but it's not flag football. It's trying to cut down on serious injuries. On average there are only 0.17 targeting calls per game. It's not like any team is losing multiple players every game. Saying it removed big hits is a lie. Players are taught at every level to keep your head up, go low, and wrap up. Targeting hits contradict every technique coaches teach on tackling.
Cutting down on helmet to helmet hits are the only way to save football. Without reducing serious injuries football would eventually die with the emerging technology showing the damage the hits do. Lawsuits would run wild and eventually it would truly be flag football only. This rule has to exist until protective gear is created that can do a better job at reducing injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: savannahfan, VFFL@THE BEACH and MoodyVol
#17
#17
jboyinmiss said:
We as football fans need to demand that some changes be made to this targeting rule. I just watched some hilites from yesterdays game and on a rush by Snell into the middle of the line he intentionally lowered his head as he was about to be met headon by our defense. Why is targeting just called on defensive players when ball carriers also lower their heads, and not only but they are allowed to stiffarm to the head area?
Click to expand...

A defender doesn't meet the definition of a defenseless player.

But I do agree the game is set up now to favor offenses.
 
#18
#18
head to head collisions in today's game is because of the size of the shoulder pads! Just a theory with no scientific evidence but I believe kids no longer tackle with the shoulders is because there is no longer any padding there. Old school shoulder pads were big and thick and players tackled with their shoulders, also because both players had big huge pads you saw less head to head contact because the big pads deflected the blow. Now there are no shoulder pads, leaving the helmets more exposed leading to more h2h collisions. I'd love to see sports science look into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoodyVol, savannahfan, feathersax and 1 other person
#19
#19
PulaskiVolFan said:
head to head collisions in today's game is because of the size of the shoulder pads! Just a theory with no scientific evidence but I believe kids no longer tackle with the shoulders is because there is no longer any padding there. Old school shoulder pads were big and thick and players tackled with their shoulders, also because both players had big huge pads you saw less head to head contact because the big pads deflected the blow. Now there are no shoulder pads, leaving the helmets more exposed leading to more h2h collisions. I'd love to see sports science look into it.
Click to expand...
This actually makes pretty decent sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoodyVol, savannahfan, feathersax and 1 other person
#21
#21
This isn't exactly groundbreaking and y'all have said it too, but targeting should only be called on intentional deliberate head hunting. This business of throwing kids out because of inadvertent contact is damaging the integrity of the game. I think people forget how difficult it is to pinpoint where you want to hit a full grown man running 20mph
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thou, savannahfan and Jack Burton
#22
#22
I have to agree.

When I played in the early 90's shoulder pads were big enough that it almost prevented some of the head to head angles we are seeing a lot of today.

I've been bitching about this for a while now. They have streamlined the padding down for the sake of speed and style..
 
  • Like
Reactions: PulaskiVolFan and savannahfan
#23
#23
PulaskiVolFan said:
I just play dumb some of the time. :) QBs used to wear smaller shoulder pads as well as WRs, they also were the main ones suffering knockout blows back in the day. I remember that Ronnie Lott and Mel Blount would knock guys out with their shoulders!
Click to expand...

There must be some truth to this. I see so many more players get knocked unconscious these days. And the game IS less violent overall.

I assume the technical advancements in material density and improved shock absorption served to reduce overall size of pads....unfortunately leading to more concussions as the form factor and footprint of the pads themselves helped in dynamic, "sport" ways that load cells can't recreate in a lab.

The same way boxing gloves actually cause more concussive blows than two guys bare knuckle boxing or using mma gloves.

Funny, when Thompson went unconscious the other day I immediately wondered about the prevalence of knockouts in today's game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: savannahfan, Max Headroom and feathersax
#24
#24
PulaskiVolFan said:
head to head collisions in today's game is because of the size of the shoulder pads! Just a theory with no scientific evidence but I believe kids no longer tackle with the shoulders is because there is no longer any padding there. Old school shoulder pads were big and thick and players tackled with their shoulders, also because both players had big huge pads you saw less head to head contact because the big pads deflected the blow. Now there are no shoulder pads, leaving the helmets more exposed leading to more h2h collisions. I'd love to see sports science look into it.
Click to expand...

I wish they would go back to the older, bigger shoulder pads.

Bring back the neck rolls also!

Good point PVF!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PulaskiVolFan, savannahfan and Type Orange+
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top