Yes, the NCAA is stupid and so is this rule.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Targeting calls
- Thread starter sackman
- Start date
Everyone has a right to an opinion.
Mine is that while it is a negative right now players will learn to adjust and the game will be safer. I'm fine with that.
Minor detail. He wasn't "targeting." My comment was generally speaking.
This is the kind of thing that the rule is trying to stop, but it's also not the even close to the type of play that gets called the majority of the time.
Agreed, but what they are trying to do is not leave it a judgement call. Make it simple, if a player strikes the opponent in the helmet including the face mask it is a penalty. No argument about degree or intent.
not sure whether or not I agree with you, but that was a well stated response. rep!
And I'm fine with that to determine if it's a 15 yard penalty, but not to throw a kid out of the game and possibly part of the next one.
Again I can see where you are coming from. Some guys have been tossed when a QB has ducked or been pushed into the hit. Those are not the norm though. The rule is about changing behavior. The only way you force the change is to make the penalty severe enough that coaches and players can't help but respond.
When I was in HS the norm for an offensive lineman was if you faced a defensive lineman who was beating you respond by going after his legs. When they legislated against cut blocks and chop blocks coaches and fans screamed that they were ruining football. Well, now we only go after a guys legs from the front and only on a one on one block, nobody minds and we have a lot less knee injuries. Had those rules been in place 40 years ago I might not be sitting here with my left knee swollen up about 2 inches bigger around than the right one.
The targeting penalty isn't going to prevent all head injuries, it probably won't prevent most head injuries. It will prevent a lot of head injuries though when players and coaches finally adapt. The issue of head injuries is probably the single biggest threat to the game that exist. It requires significant change with severe penalties to force that change. The targeting rule is part of that.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
How so?
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
Calls of the penalty are a really poor proxy for actual contact. You need completely separate data on actual helmet to helmet contact to make the argument you are trying to make.
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
Just read through this thread and here are my thoughts.
1. The penalty being called "Targeting" seems to cause some confusion. Many of you seem to think that this means intent is the driving factor in assessing whether there is a penalty or not. It may be preferable to distinguish a call as "Illegal Contact on a defenseless player"
2. Ejections suck, and if they piss off fans, you better believe they piss off players and coaches. If you don't think that is a deterrent, you're wrong. It may not enter the players mind in the heat of the moment when they commit the penalty, but it will be drilled in practice and it will be thought about while sitting in the locker room during a game that is underway instead of playing in the game..
3. I think a yellow-card/red-card approach to targeting ejections would be preferable. Define major infractions, e.g. the punt returner getting blown up in S.C. State highlight above, and minor infractions such as the Mulumba play. One major infraction (red-card) gets you ejected and suspended for the next half of a game. Two minors (yellow-cards) in a game equals a red card, two in the space of 3-4 games gets you a one half suspension.
1. The penalty being called "Targeting" seems to cause some confusion. Many of you seem to think that this means intent is the driving factor in assessing whether there is a penalty or not. It may be preferable to distinguish a call as "Illegal Contact on a defenseless player"
2. Ejections suck, and if they piss off fans, you better believe they piss off players and coaches. If you don't think that is a deterrent, you're wrong. It may not enter the players mind in the heat of the moment when they commit the penalty, but it will be drilled in practice and it will be thought about while sitting in the locker room during a game that is underway instead of playing in the game..
3. I think a yellow-card/red-card approach to targeting ejections would be preferable. Define major infractions, e.g. the punt returner getting blown up in S.C. State highlight above, and minor infractions such as the Mulumba play. One major infraction (red-card) gets you ejected and suspended for the next half of a game. Two minors (yellow-cards) in a game equals a red card, two in the space of 3-4 games gets you a one half suspension.
Anybody who saw, what did you think of that targeting call that was then reversed in the Arky-A&M game?
It had no impact on the game, and it would have been sad to see a kid leave a game like that for a play he couldn't really control, but at the same time, Laguda has been tossed twice for plays like that. The defensive back hit the receiver helmet to helmet, obviously unintentionally, but it still happened.
It's kinda frustrating to see one kid get hit with it - twice - and then see another kid get what is the wrong interpretation of the rule, even if it was, imo, the right outcome. I guess what I'm saying is, it's hard to justify kids getting thrown out when not all kids do.
It had no impact on the game, and it would have been sad to see a kid leave a game like that for a play he couldn't really control, but at the same time, Laguda has been tossed twice for plays like that. The defensive back hit the receiver helmet to helmet, obviously unintentionally, but it still happened.
It's kinda frustrating to see one kid get hit with it - twice - and then see another kid get what is the wrong interpretation of the rule, even if it was, imo, the right outcome. I guess what I'm saying is, it's hard to justify kids getting thrown out when not all kids do.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Time for two calls. Incidental vs intentional. Like Flagrant I and II in BB.
Go back to 2 a days with supervised tackling periods. Or expand time allotment to 22.
Have conference refs travel, provide education and supervise tackling sessions.
Do what Pete Carroll did.
Most of all, make it two different kind of calls.
Go back to 2 a days with supervised tackling periods. Or expand time allotment to 22.
Have conference refs travel, provide education and supervise tackling sessions.
Do what Pete Carroll did.
Most of all, make it two different kind of calls.
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
In case we needed Trump's opinion on the issue
"On the same day the media was filled with stories about a 27-year-old former NFL player who committed suicide and was found to have severe degenerative brain damage—likely much or all of it from football—the president decried how big hits have been taken out of the game"
Link
"Trump said: “Today if you hit too hard—15 yards! Throw him out of the game! They had that last week. I watched for a couple of minutes. Two guys, just really, beautiful tackle. Boom, 15 yards! The referee gets on television—his wife is sitting at home, she’s so proud of him. They’re ruining the game! They’re ruining the game. That’s what they want to do. They want to hit. They want to hit! It is hurting the game."
If the President says so it's true, right? Targeting calls are all about getting the wifey warmed up while she's waiting at home watching her sexy zebra man on the tube. Anyone have data on the pregnancy rates of referee WAGs pre and post targeting rule?
"On the same day the media was filled with stories about a 27-year-old former NFL player who committed suicide and was found to have severe degenerative brain damage—likely much or all of it from football—the president decried how big hits have been taken out of the game"
Link
"Trump said: “Today if you hit too hard—15 yards! Throw him out of the game! They had that last week. I watched for a couple of minutes. Two guys, just really, beautiful tackle. Boom, 15 yards! The referee gets on television—his wife is sitting at home, she’s so proud of him. They’re ruining the game! They’re ruining the game. That’s what they want to do. They want to hit. They want to hit! It is hurting the game."
If the President says so it's true, right? Targeting calls are all about getting the wifey warmed up while she's waiting at home watching her sexy zebra man on the tube. Anyone have data on the pregnancy rates of referee WAGs pre and post targeting rule?
Let's try to not make this political, but you would think he would have more important things to discuss, or maybe he should just be quiet across the board...
The President of the United States should not be acting like an idiot Twitter troll, arguing over things that don't matter.
Okay. From the stands it's really hard to tell and, obviously, we can't play it back. But I saw at least two plays, one on Montez and one on a receiver, where it appeared they were "speared" in the helmet by a Washington tackler and no flags were thrown. Did anyone watching on TV see those?
Some don't think this goes on anymore but I really don't agree for the most part. Sometimes if a teams plays a certain way week in and week out stuff tends to get missed more often.
Did you see the targeting shot in last night's Packers vs Bears game? WOW - blatant.
http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...ating-hit-packers-wr-davante-adams/714605001/
http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...ating-hit-packers-wr-davante-adams/714605001/
Last edited:
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
As a Bears fan I want Trevathan to sit for at least one game and pay a hefty fine for that one.
The clip doesn't show it, but he continued to mouth off and showboat for at least a minute after the hit and showed zero concern for Adams.
I think with everything considered here, a multi-game suspension is in order. There's no place for that kind of thing and that's the kind of thing, on national TV, that is slowly killing the NFL.