Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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

Buffarino

Buffarino

Math - how does it work?
Club Member
Holy ****, I hate this rule. I understand the intent and applaud it, but when it results in things like Landman getting tossed on Saturday, I just have to shake my head. How can you call that on him there? QB is running for a 1st down on 3rd and short and they decided he somehow gave himself up just before getting hit, therefore making him defenseless? Not sure what a defender is supposed to do in that situation.

Seems CU gets a disproportionate amount of targeting calls, going back a while. Is it bad luck, or are our coaches not teaching the proper way to tackle without using the crown of the helmet?
 
Buffarino said:
Holy ****, I hate this rule. I understand the intent and applaud it, but when it results in things like Landman getting tossed on Saturday, I just have to shake my head. How can you call that on him there? QB is running for a 1st down on 3rd and short and they decided he somehow gave himself up just before getting hit, therefore making him defenseless? Not sure what a defender is supposed to do in that situation.

Seems CU gets a disproportionate amount of targeting calls, going back a while. Is it bad luck, or are our coaches not teaching the proper way to tackle without using the crown of the helmet?
Click to expand...
Well the problem is exactly as you state - how the F is a defender supposed to tackle a guy without going head first? And if the opponent drops his head literally split second, isn’t the potential injury from that acrobatic brakes maneuver required to change direction potentially just as harmful, if not impossible? Point is, they’ve taken it too far. They should have a lesser penalty, I mean come on, automatic ejection? Especially with how judiciously they’re applying it? It feels like at least one player is ejected from every game, and that’s waaaaay too many. It should be a ten yard penalty when intent to go helmet to helmet is clear, and on the second infraction I think ejection should happen.

But I have no idea if we get more targeting calls than others.
 
I could see the call because Landman did lower his helmet and strike (glancing but strike) with the helmet. Had he gone in head up he would have made the strike with his chestplate and I doubt it would have been called.

Very hard to blame the player in that situation because it was all happening in an instant but as much as I didn't like it the call made sense.

I do think we are getting a lot of targeting calls, why? Part of it might be simply that our defense is on the field a lot. The offense because it is unable to establish the line of scrimmage doesn't maintain possession a lot so the defense is out there a lot, lots of plays and eventually wearing down and getting tired which results in sloppy form.

A bigger factor might be that we aren't a very disciplined football team. Guys lose form when the coaching isn't effective. We do stupid stuff like Maddox clearly taunting on a 3rd down stop resulting in a first down instead of a punt. That kind of thing kills you as a team and we do it over and over be it bad penalties or blown assignments.
 
Targeting should be about intent. If a defender intentionally uses his helmet as a weapon and makes contact with another players head, I can understand an ejection. But the vast majority of these penalties are the result of incidental contact where the defender can do nothing to avoid it. The mandatory ejection is harsh for those players and should be eliminated. A trained eye can tell upon review when a player intends to hit another player in the head. It's rare and the ejection should be reserved for those harsh hits.
 
Needs to be a 15 yard penalty for forcible contact to the head or neck.

Ejections reserved as a discretionary call for something egregious, like when someone launches to spear and headhunt. And that should be a reviewable decision. I'd actually apply that same discretionary ejection to horse collars, facemasks and chop blocks. There's a lot of **** that goes on in football games that deserves ejection way more than a defender contacting someone above the sternum when the guy is diving forward to gain an extra couple yards.
 
Last edited:
SerenityBuff said:
Targeting should be about intent. If a defender intentionally uses his helmet as a weapon and makes contact with another players head, I can understand an ejection. But the vast majority of these penalties are the result of incidental contact where the defender can do nothing to avoid it. The mandatory ejection is harsh for those players and should be eliminated. A trained eye can tell upon review when a player intends to hit another player in the head. It's rare and the ejection should be reserved for those harsh hits.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but do you want to give PAC12 refs another judgement call to make.

They need to do a better job of defining it and the coaches need to do a better job of coaching it. The booth should be able to negate the incidental stuff, especially when the contact isn't direct and hard enough to be dangerous but the CTE situation says that something past a judgement call needs to be on the books and enforced.
 
The Wazzu DB's hit on Jaylon Jackson shows another absurdity of the targeting rule. The dude hits Jackson when he's in a defenseless position; Zebras call targeting, 15yds, ejection and they review it. Oops, Wazzu dude didn't quite lead with his head, no targeting, no ejection, no penalty. That was at least unnecessary roughness.
 
DexBuffsteen said:
The Wazzu DB's hit on Jaylon Jackson shows another absurdity of the targeting rule. The dude hits Jackson when he's in a defenseless position; Zebras call targeting, 15yds, ejection and they review it. Oops, Wazzu dude didn't quite lead with his head, no targeting, no ejection, no penalty. That was at least unnecessary roughness.
Click to expand...

That was a BS non call. The crown of helmet hit the facemask.

I watched the Landman play several times in slowmo. It was pretty clear targeting by the rule. Crown of helmet struck the helmet of a defenseless rusher.
 
manhattanbuf said:
That was a BS non call. The crown of helmet hit the facemask.

I watched the Landman play several times in slowmo. It was pretty clear targeting by the rule. Crown of helmet struck the helmet of a defenseless rusher.
Click to expand...

This is what is frustrating about all this. Who knows what is or isn't a penalty. Every league calls it differently and even different crews call it differently.

In order for the coaches and the players to be able to make the changes needed to comply they need to have a consistent idea of what is a penalty.
 
MtnBuff said:
I agree with you but do you want to give PAC12 refs another judgement call to make.

They need to do a better job of defining it and the coaches need to do a better job of coaching it. The booth should be able to negate the incidental stuff, especially when the contact isn't direct and hard enough to be dangerous but the CTE situation says that something past a judgement call needs to be on the books and enforced.
Click to expand...

If it cuts down on these ridiculous ejections, yes.
 
MtnBuff said:
This is what is frustrating about all this. Who knows what is or isn't a penalty. Every league calls it differently and even different crews call it differently.

In order for the coaches and the players to be able to make the changes needed to comply they need to have a consistent idea of what is a penalty.
Click to expand...

It is frustrating, but I didn’t think it was a bad call. I feel badly for NL and the team. But, by the letter, it was a correct decision.
 
buffaholic said:
I err on the side that ridiculous ejections are better than ridiculous decapitations.
Click to expand...
On that we all agree.

Hopefully we can also all agree that this doesn't have to be a binary choice and that there might be better ways to structure the rules.
 
Buffarino said:
Here is my issue with it. At what point does the QB go from being a runner trying to get a first down to defenseless? It was a designed QB run, not a broken play.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that there are two ways you can get called for targeting. First, on a "defenseless player" with any contact to the head or neck area, whether that be helmet to helmet, shoulder to helmet, forearm to helmet, etc. The second is on any player where you hit with the crown of your helmet anywhere on the ball carrier's helmet regardless of whether the player is defenseless. There was a play in the OSU game where Landman was initially called for targeting on a running back, but they overruled it when replay showed that the hit was with the shoulder, not the crown of his helmet. If the running back had been considered defenseless, the call would have stood. I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wip
OK with auto ejections when
1) the defender launches, both of the defender’s feet off are the ground, and
2) the helmet to helmet collision involves use of the crown of the defensive player, and
3) the player on offense is defenseless.

If the hit would have appeared
on a 1990’s era ESPN’ Jack You Up highlight reel, then throw the flag and toss the player.

I’m not okay with ejections when BOTH offensive and defensive players lower and lead with their heads. If a QB, a receiver or RB lowers his head and is in a running motion (not in process of catching the ball), then ejections should be off the table or at least discretionary.

Watching defenders get ejected on questionable hits makes the product on the field harder to enjoy. Replays on penalties under review are not helping fans enjoy the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
manhattanbuf said:
It is frustrating, but I didn’t think it was a bad call. I feel badly for NL and the team. But, by the letter, it was a correct decision.
Click to expand...

As I said in the third post in the thread he lowered his head and made contact. By the rule that is the right call and while it is frustrating he should have been ejected and was.

The problem comes when one guy is thrown out of the game and then a different player strikes with a helmet to the helmet and stays in the game. To make the rule effective it needs to be clarified to a point that it can be consistently called and enforced.
 
TSchekler said:
The NFL has targeting as well. It's a 15 yard penalty. The officials then have the discretion to eject a player if they feel it was malicious.
Click to expand...
This would be better than the current all or nothing situation the NCAA has. I would have been OK with a 15 yarder on Landman, but not the ejection.
 
Heard somewhere that it’s the back of the head colliding with the ground that causes a good portion of concussions. Its that type of impact that has caused Jay MacIntyre into concussion protocol.

The intention of targeting rules is to make the game safer. But it seems the rule is excluding a important aspect of player safety.

If it’s appropriate for Landman to be ejected vs Wazzou, then it seems that the USC defender that ragdoll tackled JMac or the USC defender that plowed into LaViska are just as guilty of increasing head injury risk.
 
Clean Undies said:
Heard somewhere that it’s the back of the head colliding with the ground that causes a good portion of concussions. Its that type of impact that has caused Jay MacIntyre into concussion protocol.

The intention of targeting rules is to make the game safer. But it seems the rule is excluding a important aspect of player safety.

If it’s appropriate for Landman to be ejected vs Wazzou, then it seems that the USC defender that ragdoll tackled JMac or the USC defender that plowed into LaViska are just as guilty of increasing head injury risk.
Click to expand...

You are right here. The current rule seems to have led to a lot more low hits taking guys legs out and dropping them on their heads. I'd rather have a mild bump of helmets than see something like happened to JMac.
 
Creebuzz said:
The lawyers drafted the rule. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Lawyers provide counsel based on minimizing risk. They don’t get to make the business decisions. It’s the commissioners and league officials that own those business decisions.
 
Create a 2 tiered targeting rule along the lines of the Flagrant 1 and 2 basketball rule... Flagrant one is coincidental content of the helmet, when the players lower or turn into each other and other relatively innocuous hits . Flagrant two is the headhunting hits that they are trying to eliminate. 2 flagrant 1's for an ejection and a single flagrant 2 equals ejection.
 
Buffnik said:
Needs to be a 15 yard penalty for forcible contact to the head or neck.

Ejections reserved as a discretionary call for something egregious, like when someone launches to spear and headhunt. And that should be a reviewable decision. I'd actually apply that same discretionary ejection to horse collars, facemasks and chop blocks. There's a lot of **** that goes on in football games that deserves ejection way more than a defender contacting someone above the sternum when the guy is diving forward to gain an extra couple yards.
Click to expand...
Good point, I’m also tired of all the “face masks” of some defender’s hand split second incidentally grazing/getting caught in a face mask. Sometimes you can 100% tell it was unintentional and incidental in the course of play.
 
manhattanbuf said:
I watched the Landman play several times in slowmo. It was pretty clear targeting by the rule. Crown of helmet struck the helmet of a defenseless rusher.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry, defenseless rusher? The QB is running and diving forward to get a first down. He’s not sliding and protecting himself, at which point he woukd be marked well behind the first down line. A player can’t use the rule as a bludgeon to ensure they can get a first down, that’s expressly against the nature of the sport. The point of the rule is player safety, and the player being protected should not be rewarded for diving head first to gain a competative advantage because he knows he’ll be protected by a player-safety rule. That defies the pont of the rule! It becomes a perverse incentive for an offensive player to lead with his head when near a first down, while seemingly requiring defensive players to simply give up the first down yardage in order to protect the player who is choosing not to protect himself.

I completely agree with the “defenseless player” application of the rule, and the Jackson hit should be called. But, the Landman application - especially at the actual speed of the play - gives an unintended, peverse benefit to the offense for choosing to act unsafely and lead with the head - to gain a competative advantage.

This game is about gaining yardage by physical force. A player can’t engage to gain a foot of yardage and then pull some school-yard bull****, Oh! You can’t touch me!!! I win!!!

That call was a bridge WAY too far.
 
I hate it when they say the defender must keep his head up.
EVER PLAY FOOTBALL???

You can't use your shoulders if your head is up. You can't properly hit in the chest with your shoulder and wrap if your head is up.
It is a horrible way to look at this. The defender has every right to be protected as the offensive player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top