October 26th, 2018 at 10:05 PM ^
Agreed
October 26th, 2018 at 10:05 PM ^
hit him with his upper chest/maybe his chin, not the crown of the helmet. i would not have thrown a flag, either.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:07 PM ^
It doesn’t have to be with the crown of the helmet if it’s to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver. The explanation on that (ie that there was no launching) made NO sense whatsoever.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:09 PM ^
i played a lot of football and i totally support the idea of a targeting rule. that was not flag-worthy.
October 27th, 2018 at 1:32 AM ^
This. It was face mask to face mask contact. Seemed like a legit hit to me
October 27th, 2018 at 8:14 AM ^
Recall that facemask to facemask contact was the play on which Bolden was ejected for targeting in the 2015 game against MSU. (Never mind that an MSU player threw Bolden down onto the MSU QB.) The targeting rule is way too subjective.
October 27th, 2018 at 8:43 AM ^
Bolden getting ejected for that was the most egregious call I’ve ever seen and will ever see
October 27th, 2018 at 8:18 AM ^
“t was face mask to face mask contact.”
That’s exactly the reason it should have been called, per the rule (not saying that I agree with it). The post below by newtopos states the rule.
October 27th, 2018 at 9:45 AM ^
Respectfully disagree. It’s either using the crown of the helmet or it’s “forceable contact” using the head, shoulder arm elbow ....
he was pulling up and hit him face to face. No crown so then you go to forceable contact and I dont think there was any
October 26th, 2018 at 10:53 PM ^
If you don’t lead with the crown then to have targeting you need “forcible contact” to the head or neck area. What I think the rules expert meant by the “no launching” remark was that the contact wasn’t “forcible.” But if that is what he meant, he should have been clearer about it.
I was glad they didn’t call the foul on that play, even though technically I think it probably was targeting per the rule. I hope in the offseason they tweak the rule a bit to allow officials a bit more discretion for plays like that one.
October 27th, 2018 at 8:22 AM ^
That’s fine, if that’s the case, but the rules expert should probably be expected to know that there is more than one “indicator” for targeting and what happened here clearly met one of the others. Again, don’t agree with it, just pointing out the ridiculousness of it.
October 27th, 2018 at 9:20 AM ^
Wasn't defenseless. Saw him coming the entire way. Had his arms between them too. Kid came in head up and their facemasks hit. Technically was that targeting? I don't know, they didn't call it, so no, technically it wasn't. Logically was that targeting? Nope, good clean football play.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:12 PM ^
Can’t wait for Steve to tell all of us that the game is just played differently now and we all have to get used to it.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:12 PM ^
I'll agree with Xtra - I wouldn't have thrown that flag either. The defender came in with his hands and head up. The WR was going down trying to catch the ball, and ducked further when the DB came in. It was more of a chest to chest hit, also, I thought. IMO, it was a good non-call for good team coverage.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:16 PM ^
The ACC is butt, except AJ Dillon.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:24 PM ^
Targeting definitely shouldnt be a disqualification penalty unless there is intent.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:46 PM ^
I don’t like the arbitrary nature of the punishment. If you target in the first minute of the game, you miss 59 minutes of the game. If you target in the last minute, you miss 1 minute of the game plus 30 minutes of the next. Doesn’t our Constitution guarantee equal protection? MGoLawyers, help me out with the applicable Latin principle.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:51 PM ^
i think the phrase you are looking for is: stupidus rulus absolvo y punisho wrong peopleo
or something like that.
October 26th, 2018 at 11:44 PM ^
Thanks XM. I know you’ve always got my back.
October 27th, 2018 at 7:09 AM ^
california brothers. you probably didn't know i was a latin whiz, did you? just another service for the mgoblogosphere.
October 26th, 2018 at 11:26 PM ^
Also if you target with 1 minute left in the 1H, you sit 30 minutes. If you target 1 minute into the 2nd half, you sit 60 minutes.
I've been saying it should be like a penalty box in hockey. Call it a 30 minute penalty. Dictate at what point in that game or next the 30 minutes expires. Hell, I'd be ok with 15 minutes if its accidental and 60 min if it's with intent.
October 27th, 2018 at 8:22 AM ^
The Constitution limits what the government can do. Equal protection refers to prohibiting discriminatory treatment of comparable groups based on characteristics such as race, religion, sex, . . . . It has nothing to do with enforcement of sports penalties that aren't based on such characteristics.
October 26th, 2018 at 11:16 PM ^
Now this is CLEARLY Targeting....
October 26th, 2018 at 11:54 PM ^
I disagree with factoring intent in. In my opinion, all that does is make the targeting rules even more arbitrary and inconsistent.
Targeting as it exists currently is a mess, but the goal is to remove that form of really dangerous contact from the game, and I think it's probably decently effective at that. I don't know if it's been measured, but I suspect that contact to the head, and especially hard hits to the head, have decreased since it's been implemented. If the default becomes a 15-yard penalty, I expect that it would be very rare that officials actually bump it up to disqualification, and the rule loses much of its impact.
A different sport, but I'm partly swayed by the memory of clear-cut flagrant 2 fouls in key moments that officials wimped out on calling (I'm still bitter about the non-call against Indiana in 2013 that probably cost Michigan a co-Big Ten regular season championship). I think if you're asking officials to judge intent, particularly in a key high-pressure situation, they're going to go with the easy non-call most of the time.
October 27th, 2018 at 12:33 AM ^
I have to disagree with your premise that the goal is to remove that form of really dangerous contact from the game. IMO, the goal is to make it look like the goal is to remove that form of really dangerous contact. But if the goal is to sincerely remove that form or really dangerous contact from the game then everybody that committed that form of dangerous contact would be penalized. This would necessarily include ball carriers that lower their shoulders and head to gain extra yards. This would include ball carriers that dive for a first down or the endzone. And this would include third party players that drive one player into another. Moreover, defensive players that turn their head and go low should not be penalized should the ball carriers head strike them because they themselves intentionally lowered their head and shoulders. On the contrary, the brains of defensive players are just as precious as those of players on the offense and should be accorded the same respect and protection.
It used to be that targeting was pretty clear cut, that defensive players would be penalized for head first spears and launched strikes to the head of the offensive player. Spearing was outlawed to protect the defensive player, and strikes to the head to protect the offensive player. Then a few years ago the NCAA said they would improve the targeting rule. Naive waifs such as myself thought they would extend the penalty to include offensive players that themselves spear or commit targeting fouls. Oh what fools we were. Targeting rules did change, they changed to protect offensive players to an even greater degree while simultaneously ignoring the plight of defensive players. But that's okay, because the exciting part of the game, offense, is what really needs protecting.
October 27th, 2018 at 6:59 AM ^
I think your point that offensive players targeting defensive players exists and should be called is well taken. I actually would not be surprised if there were a rule change for next season as I believe that this is a growing realization.
October 27th, 2018 at 11:19 AM ^
As written the rule applies to all players, and could be applied to ball carriers without changing the rules should the NCAA so choose. In fact there is a description of targeting that would penalize an offensive player, blind side blocks with a hit to the head and or neck area. Ever see that called? I believe the next call will be the first.
But yes, the rules need a drastic change. For instance while receivers are considered defenseless players, a defensive player attempting an INT, or having just completed an INT is NOT considered a defenseless player. Players on the ground are considered defenseless. Consider a loose ball with players on the ground trying to take possession of the fumble and a linebacker diving into the scrum. Chances are very good that if the LB strikes the helmet of an offensive player he will be ejected from the game. Change the offending player from LB to RB, WR, or OL with the victim being a defensive player the chances of the offensive player being ejected are zero while that of victimized defender being ejected are possible.
The fans of football are being played. The players are being played. The NCAA is throwing a bone to player safety while purposely ignoring half of the game. Through the use of the targeting rule the NCAA has assured football remains exciting while cynically suggesting that the rule is all about player safety.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:49 PM ^
They should only be suspended for a quarter or something. This full game or rest of the half and next half is pretty ridiculous. A lot of the targeting that gets flagged is incidental. No intent whatsoever just a late duck or something. The game is policed way too much.
October 26th, 2018 at 10:59 PM ^
Here is the relevant language for this hit.
>>>>
No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
- Launch (not applicable)
- ...
- Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
- A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
>>>
I can only assume the "indicators of targeting" and especially the "leading with..." indicator are not ironclad indicators, and that the ref must still make a subjective intent determination that it was for purposes beyond making a legal tackle or playing the ball. (Not to mention, the definition of what is a legal tackle must depend, in part, on it not being targeting, so this definition of targeting also bakes in some circularity.)
October 26th, 2018 at 11:18 PM ^
Replay is doing a lot of that for them. Multiple times this year, Michigan has gotten targeting flags thrown because of a call from the replay official
October 26th, 2018 at 11:31 PM ^
I remember watching Torii Hunter’s kid getting lit up in the end zone by a Texas DB right in front of a ref. They didn’t make the call then, I was convinced refs have no clue about the rules. http://es.pn/2bWJsoE
October 26th, 2018 at 11:54 PM ^
There were a few calls last week that were ridiculous. Some guy from LSU is suspended the first half against Bama on a ridiculous targeting call where he hit the QB, but it was with his hands like a push. LSU fans are pissed and conspiracies are flying around how they wanted him out against Bama and I don’t blame them one bit.
October 27th, 2018 at 8:52 AM ^
I started watching the Wisconsin v. Illinois game during the weather delay, and an official flagged Illinois for targeting when he went for an interception and ran into the receiver's head/neck/shoulder region while catching the ball!! His head was even turned looking at the ball coming in and there was no intent.
Upon review, it was overturned (and there was another flag on Illinois that nullified the INT), but I found that ridiculous it was even called im the first place.
October 27th, 2018 at 12:57 AM ^
Quick, somebody call the PAC 12 for a definitive ruling
October 27th, 2018 at 8:03 AM ^
It is extremely subjective. There were a few hits in the MSU game that could have been flagged for targeting. There needs to be a review of sorts because that play that lsu got called for is ridiculous.
October 27th, 2018 at 8:16 AM ^
We need better officiating.
October 27th, 2018 at 8:47 AM ^
Speight took another LB diving down into his head targeting as he's sliding in the Utah game last night. They ejected the Utah player.
October 27th, 2018 at 10:25 AM ^
Too many targeting calls are being made where the hit is an honest football play. If those making these determinations had a clue about the game and there was a good, standard way to decide what the "offending" player's options and intents were the current emphasis would be just fine. As things stand at this time-Oh my!