Targeting

[manhattanbuff]

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.

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

The rule is very clear. It was a good call per the rule.

You seem to disagree with the rule. That is not the matter. The rule exists regardless of your opinion of it. The players and officials must abide by it.

 

[Buffnik]

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

The rule is very clear. It was a good call per the rule.

You seem to disagree with the rule. That is not the matter. The rule exists regardless of your opinion of it. The players and officials must abide by it.

That's where I'm at. It was the right call but it's the wrong rule. Ejections seem like the punishment doesn't fit the crime to me in the vast majority of cases.

 

[MtnBuff]

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

The rule is very clear. It was a good call per the rule.

You seem to disagree with the rule. That is not the matter. The rule exists regardless of your opinion of it. The players and officials must abide by it.

Completely correct.

Watch the play. As Landman launched himself towards the runner his head was up, as he got closer the head dropped and the helmets made solid contact.

Had Landman simply kept his head up he would have made the contact with his chestplate and likely would not have been flagged.

Pete Carroll with the Seahawks brought in a rugby coach from Australia to reteach tackling technique. Since then his defenses have remained physical but have had fewer penalties and in the limited statistical sample it appears that they have fewer tackling related injuries.

I played the game. Technique can be learned. Landman has now been ejected twice this season for targeting. As good as he is he doesn't help the team when he is in the locker room due to penalty.

Lots of other linebackers make a large amount of tackles without getting sent off.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Completely correct.

Watch the play. As Landman launched himself towards the runner his head was up, as he got closer the head dropped and the helmets made solid contact.

Had Landman simply kept his head up he would have made the contact with his chestplate and likely would not have been flagged.

Pete Carroll with the Seahawks brought in a rugby coach from Australia to reteach tackling technique. Since then his defenses have remained physical but have had fewer penalties and in the limited statistical sample it appears that they have fewer tackling related injuries.

I played the game. Technique can be learned. Landman has now been ejected twice this season for targeting. As good as he is he doesn't help the team when he is in the locker room due to penalty.

That’s the thing about Landman: he knows these techniques better than nearly every college player. Landman’s dad taught rugby style tackling to Nate since Landman’s dad was a professional rugby player. He is a very instinctual player, but the next staff will need to keep him focused on these fundamentals so he can be on the field all 3 downs.

 

[MtnBuff]

That’s the thing about Landman: he knows these techniques better than nearly every college player. Landman’s dad taught rugby style tackling to Nate since Landman’s dad was a professional rugby player. He is a very instinctual player, but the next staff will need to keep him focused on these fundamentals so he can be on the field all 4 quarters.

fify

 

[GawainBuff]

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

I have watched the play multiple times. In slow motion. He is clearly attempting to gain the first down and is still moving forward! He does not “give himself up,” which implies he has given up the attempt to gain yardage. All of which is why the forward momentum - yardage gained - is marked at the moment the slide begins, not the point farthest forward. In this case, he is seeking additional yardage forward throughout the play as it is the whole point of diving forward to get the first down.

The time frame to which you are referring - his recoil from the impending impact - involves fractions of a second. There is no way to communicate “I’m giving myself up in this play” in the “slow mo” way you interpret. A “slide” to become “defenseless” in this context is an overt, obvious act!

If his last (fraction of a) second recoil from the inoming defender makes him “defenseless,” we are not playing football anymore - as the meaning of “defenseless player” becomes so broad as to vitiate the intent of the rule.

 

[DBT]

Ejecting players is stupid. Period. It can affect the outcome of games. Make it a 15 yard penalty and be done with it.

The word “targeting” implies intent to take aim at and hit a target. In the case of the penalty, the target is the head. Very rarely is that what happened. Generally the tackler is aiming for the torso, legs or whatever. But not the head. Then the ball carrier makes a move as the tackler is committed and the head moves into the target zone. The tackler has no time to react. But he wasn’t “targeting the head.” Just make it a 15 yard penalty for contact with the head and move on.

 

[Bourbon Buff]

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.

I think the defender is now supposed to make a tackle the way someone catches a kickball - standing with head up and cradling the runner as he sticks his head into the defender's gut. And the targeting rule will become a little more even-handed when it starts being used against running backs, who use their helmets as battering rams more often than not.

 

[manhattanbuff]

I have watched the play multiple times. In slow motion. He is clearly attempting to gain the first down and is still moving forward! He does not “give himself up,” which implies he has given up the attempt to gain yardage. All of which is why the forward momentum - yardage gained - is marked at the moment the slide begins, not the point farthest forward. In this case, he is seeking additional yardage forward throughout the play as it is the whole point of diving forward to get the first down.

The time frame to which you are referring - his recoil from the impending impact - involves fractions of a second. There is no way to communicate “I’m giving myself up in this play” in the “slow mo” way you interpret. A “slide” to become “defenseless” in this context is an overt, obvious act!

If his last (fraction of a) second recoil from the inoming defender makes him “defenseless,” we are not playing football anymore - as the meaning of “defenseless player” becomes so broad as to vitiate the intent of the rule.

I guess we have different perspectives of the play then. You’re the only person I’ve encountered who didn’t see the play as clear targeting after rewatching.

 

[BuffLuke80]

You should watch the play again. He was going down and crouched on his knees when Landman’s helmet hit Minshew’s helmet. It wasn’t intentional but is what happened.

The rule is very clear. It was a good call per the rule.

You seem to disagree with the rule. That is not the matter. The rule exists regardless of your opinion of it. The players and officials must abide by it.

You're right. I've seen plenty of plays, in other conferences, that were let go, at the same time. They were worse than what Landman did. All I know is this, you get guys guessing on what to do on a football field, it's a very bad idea. The rule might be black and white, how it is called isn't. Kinda hard to adjust when that happens.