Should Henry Have Been Called For Targeting?

Submitted by IncrediblySTIFF on

 

I am glad he didn't, obviously, but if this happened to Rudddddddock I would have been livid.  This resulted in Hackenberg being "shaken up", although I do think the attention was more focused on his neck than his "probable, mild concussion."

It sure looks like Henry has plenty of chance to not drive his head directly at a guy who is clearly falling to the ground already.

 

Also, I will give you a post below this, please neg it (if you feel so inclined) so your vote actually counts instead of this one.

MGoBoard
Football
consistency
big ten refs
mediocre
targetting

uminks

November 25th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^

Bolden got a cheap call against MSU. Targeting is one of the most unfair and judgmental calls in all college football. There is no uniform standard for refs on the field and those in the booth.

Joined: 11/10/2009

MGoPoints: 31975

madmaxweb

November 25th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^

To me, that's a good no call. In this situation it seems like Henry is already diving to tackle Hackenburg before Taco comes in a blows him up which results in Henry hitting his head. So this play j don't believe he should have been called, he can't adjust himself in that situation as 300LBer while being blocked and then diving before Hackenburg gets hit.

However, later in the game when Hackenburg fell to the ground and the two Michigan players hit him, I was extremely surprised they didn't get called for late hit or even targeting. I was really surprised on that no call.

Joined: 02/21/2012

MGoPoints: 1865

MGoBeast

November 25th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^

Is it just me, or does it seem like the ref winces after the play. I saw that and my impression was that he thought about throwing the flag, but wasn't decisive enough. 

Joined: 11/24/2015

MGoPoints: 686

bryemye

November 25th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^

And feared a flag. But I think he actually misses Hackenberg's head with his own helmet and it wasn't as bad as it looked. No way would I think targeting, but B1G officials are total *shrugs* on that so who knwos. 

Still a double impact for Hackenberg which will usually shake someone up. 

Joined: 09/14/2009

MGoPoints: 2692

B1G_Fan

November 25th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^

 I feared a flag after every big play.  I'm still not sold on that defensive holding call on one of our linemen and the Peppers PI call was horrible. I felt a little better after the Wisconsin game ended and saw the video of Wisconsins TD that got recalled because they said the WR didn't retain possesion.... At least the Big Ten Officials are universally horrible this year

Joined: 10/11/2012

MGoPoints: 3411

HateSparty

November 25th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^

Absolutely....if the game was played in slow motion.  Since it is not, that would be a ridiculous call.  If Zettel's was not targeting, this would and should not even be in the discussion.

Joined: 12/17/2014

MGoPoints: 27143

IncrediblySTIFF

November 25th, 2015 at 11:30 AM ^

I hate this line of reasoning.  "If this one was called this way, this other one should aslo be called the same."

 

I think the Zettel hit was a bad reversal of the targetting -- although honestly I don't think it was a roughing the passer.  He's there as the ball is being delivered.  It is the way he leaves his feet and propels into Ruddddddddock's chin that makes it targetting to me.

 

But anyway, my point is about this call, and the Zettel play shouldn't be in discussion -- people make bad calls all the time, which is why the B16 should have 1 guy who sits in a booth somewhere and reviews all calls.

Joined: 03/26/2011

MGoPoints: 7962

HateSparty

November 25th, 2015 at 11:45 AM ^

I don't disagree with your sentiment.  My point is that the discussion of targeting is so open ended that you have to try to set a bar, a certain standard, that equates to targeting.  I haven't seen it yet but if intentional head hits is the generic baseline, Zettel's was more clearly that than Henry's.  I won't even discuss the Bolden hit during MSU.  

Joined: 12/17/2014

MGoPoints: 27143

m goblue

November 25th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^

This is NOT targetting and NOT a late hit in the least.  Anyone saying that this hit should have been flagged in anyway is flat out wrong.  You're allowed and encouraged to assist in making a tackle so just because Hackenberg is getting hit doesn't mean you don't him and assist in bringing him down.  Henry dove at Hackenbergs midsection and led with the shoulder.  Not at all flaggable.

 

He did have one later in the game when he came in late and drove him into the ground.  I could have seen that getting called a 15 yarder.

Joined: 01/24/2012

MGoPoints: 651

MaizieGoBlue

November 25th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^

after all the BS this season with targeting, is it, isn't it, the last thing I want to see is a topic about targeting from last week. who cares? Beat those scumbags from the piece of shit state.

Joined: 11/18/2011

MGoPoints: 361

bacon

November 25th, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^

No, it's not targeting. For this to be targeting, there has to be intent.  Henry beats his man, turns the corner and is lined up for a shot on the QB (who has the ball down). I think he lowers his head to hit the QB legally (or maybe put his helmet where the ball is). If the QB isn't hit before this is likely a huge sack. By the time Charlton knocks the QB over, Henry is already starting to tackle the QB. If anything, he lowers his head to avoid helmet to helmet.

Joined: 01/04/2009

MGoPoints: 18646

Magnus

November 25th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^

No Michigan player should be called for targeting until an opposing player is called for targeting. Rudock has been "targeted" about 5 times this year - at least - and not one call has gone in his favor. So f*** Hackenberg and any other Michigan opponent until then.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 165959

Donnie Brasco

November 25th, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^

henry has no chill. When he drove hack into the ground, i felt kinda bad for hack. JT next. Cardele too once JT gets knocked out

Joined: 10/12/2012

MGoPoints: 2024

CompleteLunacy

November 25th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^

When a QB is going down already and the defender is in motion for the hit, it's hard to assess whether his intent was to hit his head or not (and in most cases I would say it wasn't). But it's a grey area for sure...you have to also look at how much time before the defender hits him (I.e. Did he have an opportunity to let up?)

My first impression was it wasn't targeting because the hit was a bang bang play...but I did get uncomfortable watching the replay and Henry seemingly lowering his head to hit Hack in the head at the last moment.

My short answer? I have no fucking clue, but Zettel's was far more obviously targeting than this hit.

Joined: 11/13/2010

MGoPoints: 12910

Lampuki

November 25th, 2015 at 3:25 PM ^

If the "target" is moving or the defensive player is engaged/ coming off a block it should have to be egregious/ clearly intentional. A guy getting hit and a guy come BH off a block. That's just football.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 08/27/2010

MGoPoints: 961

victoriaed90

November 25th, 2015 at 3:45 PM ^

Can't really see from this angle, but it doesn't look like there was any helmet to helmet contact. The only thing you could even hope for is a late hit I guess, but this doesn't even look that late.

Joined: 05/23/2013

MGoPoints: 411

RJWolvie

November 25th, 2015 at 5:46 PM ^

Not this, but the play earlier in the game when Hack loses the ball ... Second guy in has like an hour to decide not to hit him after he regains possession and he not only throws himself downward at him headfirst but hits him helmet to helmet. I was like "Whew!" when somehow no flag came out



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 10/22/2011

MGoPoints: 4417