Targeting...

[OUBuff]

The most well intentioned, poorly enforced penalty in the history of football.

There is just too much intrepretation involved in the determination of targeting. Anybody see the targeting flag that was just picked up in the Cal - Arizona game? The DB almost took the WR's head off, yet the explination for not calling targeting was 'contact wasn't significant.'

Then... you get Landman.

Not a CU complaint or looking from gold and black glasses, but the enforcement of this rule needs to be normalized.

 

[Medford M.]

I think you know I'm not a homer, and even I say Landman's hit was not targeting. Was not forceful and was not malicious.

 

[chitownbuff]

I think you know I'm not a homer, and even I say Landman's hit was not targeting. Was not forceful and was not malicious.

You’re definitely a Flanders.

 

[BUFFering]

All these please are pretty bang bang and the ref on the field can barely keep up. In the example of Landman the call stood because they didn't have a good camera angel. If it is so subjective the call needs to be done by the league office not some schmo on the field. Why not buzz down or let the coaches throw the flag?

 

[OUBuff]

All these please are pretty bang bang and the ref on the field can barely keep up. In the example of Landman the call stood because they didn't have a good camera angel. If it is so subjective the call needs to be done by the league office not some schmo on the field. Why not buzz down or let the coaches throw the flag?

I get the bang-bang nature of the game. I think my biggest problem with it is how the replay is so inconsistent with application of the rule. I'd be happier if they made a confirmed or overturned call. For a penalty that results in ejection to come down to a need for 100% visual evidence proving he didn't target is a little ridiculous.

And then you get... "well, it wasn't that bad" in another game and the guy gets to continue. I just don't get it.

 

[goalline]

USF vs Umass had a terrible targeting play on a kick off. The runner was unconscious before he hit the ground and fumbled. No call. Amazing.

 

[somebody]

All these please are pretty bang bang and the ref on the field can barely keep up. In the example of Landman the call stood because they didn't have a good camera angel. If it is so subjective the call needs to be done by the league office not some schmo on the field. Why not buzz down or let the coaches throw the flag?

It was clear that Landman hit with his helmet up, contacting the guy with his facemask. Okay, maybe that's technically targeting. But then later in the game targeting against the ASU player was called off, although he also made facemask to helmet contact. I don't see how one is called but not the other. It has to at least be consistently enforced.

 

[Brett Fulton]

It was clear that Landman hit with his helmet up, contacting the guy with his facemask. Okay, maybe that's technically targeting. But then later in the game targeting against the ASU player was called off, although he also made facemask to helmet contact. I don't see how one is called but not the other. It has to at least be consistently enforced.

And the second hit, the one that "wasn't" targeting, was clearly the more potentially dangerous of the two, and quite clearly the one that rule makers are trying to get out of the game. Agree with the initial post, way too much subjectivity in enforcement. In this game it should have been both or neither. No third option.

 

[Jaximus]

Can't the NCAA and NFL just ****ing admit it already...

"Player beware, repeated concussions may cause CTE. Play at your own risk."

I knew my health was at risk when I played and I did not care. I guaranty almost anyone at the D1 level agrees.

Hitting a defenseless player is one thing. What Landman did was textbook defense.

Give me back my real football.

 

[CUFan]

I don’t understand it at all. Complete wildcard as to whether a hard hit is targeting.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

Can't the NCAA and NFL just ****ing admit it already...

"Player beware, repeated concussions may cause CTE. Play at your own risk."

I knew my health was at risk when I played and I did not care. I guaranty almost anyone at the D1 level agrees.

Hitting a defenseless player is one thing. What Landman did was textbook defense.

Give me back my real football.

Perfect!

 

[Ralfie]

Can't the NCAA and NFL just ****ing admit it already...

"Player beware, repeated concussions may cause CTE. Play at your own risk."

I knew my health was at risk when I played and I did not care. I guaranty almost anyone at the D1 level agrees.

Hitting a defenseless player is one thing. What Landman did was textbook defense.

Give me back my real football.

Exactly. Football ain't safe. Why is everyone acting like this is a surprise lately? SHOCKING BREAKING NEWS: getting hit in the head over and over and over again as hard as you can for a living ain't good for your brain. Who can we sue?

 

[cu3x]

On the 2nd hit, after the replay, the ref started to announce the call, then stopped, had a further conversation on the radio, then reversed it. I think NY made a late decision, different than what they were going to do

 

[OUBuff]

I think I'd like to see the targeting called this way

- may be initiated on the field or from the replay booth
- if initiated from the field, the review official has one of three choices
- Confirmed (player ejected, 15 yd penalty)
- Overturned (no ejection, no penalty)
- Inconclusive; benefit of the doubt goes to the player, not the official. (no ejection, 15 yd penalty stands)
- if initiated from the replay booth
- Targeting (ejection, 15 yd penalty)
- No penalty

 

[Buffnik]

Why would there be a 15 yard penalty if the replay showed that it wasn't targeting? I don't understand that at all. Would be like if we reviewed facemask penalties as something that got you booted from the game if you did it, determined on review that the facemask wasn't grabbed, but still assessed the 15 yards. It's bizarre.

 

[OUBuff]

Why would there be a 15 yard penalty if the replay showed that it wasn't targeting? I don't understand that at all. Would be like if we reviewed facemask penalties as something that got you booted from the game if you did it, determined on review that the facemask wasn't grabbed, but still assessed the 15 yards. It's bizarre.

I don't think I said that.
My thought is that if targeting is called on the field and the replay official can't make the determination whether it is targeting or not, you go with the call on the field, but don't eject the player. Only eject the player when there is video evidence of a violation.

Take the Landman situation for instance, the replay call was that the ruling on the field stands... not confirmed. In my proposal, landman would have incurred a 15 yd penalty, but still would be in the game. Seems fair given the on field official saw enough to call the penalty, but there wasn't enough there to actually confirm.

 

[DBT]

If the ref thinks it’s unecessary roughness, throw the flag and assess the penalty. Then review it during halftime or after the game. If it’s determined it was targeting then the player misses the next half of play.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

sooooooo... about targeting calls in the Pac12

 

[Buffarino]

Why would a 3rd party be involved in targeting reviews? And who are these 3rd parties?

 

[SuperD]

Why would a 3rd party be involved in targeting reviews? And who are these 3rd parties?

Apparently every P5 league except the B1G has some sort of "command center" that can help weigh in on replay calls for all games, that's my best guess as to the third party.

 

[BuffNut]

Link says the 3rd party was Pac 12 general counsel, an untrained official. Odd to me that his verdict overrules the others.

 

[BuffUp]

I actually like HCMMs idea of the penalty box type punishment. It is true - every player is penalized a different amount of time depending on when the call is made.

 

[cmgoods]