Targeting rule/penalties

Submitted by crg on

As we all know (or should know), the targeting rule has been questionably applied across the college football spectrum.  While the official intentions of the rule to reduce head injuries/trauma are laudable (although there is an arguement that this is more to preclude future lawsuits), the greatest problem I have about the rule is the ejection of the offending player.  Currently, if a player commits an egregious personal foul (non-targetting) or unsportsmanlike behavior they at leat get a warning penalty (w/ or w/o yardage) before being ejected.  Yet, even with unintentional "targeting" the player is gone.

The NCAA had the opportunity to revise the rule over the off-season and at least allowed the replay booth to be involved in identifying whether targeting occured, but the penalty is still inappropriate.

How would you change the rule (or is it good as is)?

Steeveebr

September 24th, 2016 at 8:57 PM ^

It's actually becoming one of my favorite rules.  When applied, there isn't a grey area.  Give me rules that have no grey area over intent rules any day.

"No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul...No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul."

Kicking the offending player out of the game, no questions asked, is probably the only way we fix some of the broken fundamentals our football culture has learned from the sensationalized hits of the past 25 years.  Will there be times when it was completely unavoidable?  Sure, but the majority of times this is just players trying to do more than is necessary or needed.

 

LSAClassOf2000

September 24th, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^

My biggest complaint about this rule was kind of underscored on that call, and like others, I am of the belief that it was unintentional and that Penn State's LB was trying to go for the ball. To me, that's a no-call, and yet because I see it that way, I think that's as good a reason to revise this rule as any because I get this feeling that I may have missed something OR I saw it as it was and the refs are in the wrong here. It's that lack of clarity that bothers me. 

McSomething

September 24th, 2016 at 4:58 PM ^

The enforcement of the targetting rules is a joke. But after how Michigan was on the short end of that stick every single time last season, I'm perfectly fine with other teams suffering from it this year.

MGoDillon

September 24th, 2016 at 5:11 PM ^

Yeah they need to fix it. It's sick how many people get ejected when they shouldn't have.

I think that they should have something like the flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 system. So judge whether its purposeful/ malicious or not. If it was, automatic ejection. If it was clearly accidental, then just a warning and 15 yard penalty or whatever.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

zggolfer

September 24th, 2016 at 5:22 PM ^

call.  That was the wrong call.  Who the hell is maing these calls, guys who never played the game?  Awful, no way that kid should have been tossed he was trying to intercept the pass.  What have we got 10 more weeks of Big Ten officiating, i cant wait?  As Harbaugh said, "this isnt track".

weasel3216

September 24th, 2016 at 5:32 PM ^

I think they should have levels for the targeting calls. One level for the hit in the first half and a second level for those asshole hits where the defensive player is intentional trying to hurt the offensive player.

Bando Calrissian

September 24th, 2016 at 5:37 PM ^

You can show the same group of people 100 potential targeting calls, they'll come back with 50 that should be penalties, and their 50 will be complete different from everyone else's. That's how this rule works.

At the end of the day, the refs are going to defer to the penalty every time--they're instructed to do so. When in doubt, it's a penalty. If you lead with a helmet, intentionally or not, it's a flag and an ejection.

Pit2047

September 24th, 2016 at 5:48 PM ^

For all the people complaining about the call, you are wrong. Read the rule. Forcible contact to the helmet of a player is targeting with ANY part of the body is targeting. Period. They made the CORRECT call by the book.

That being said I don't agree that this is how the rule should be written. It shouldn't be an automatic ejection if a guy is making a play on the ball, penalty yes but not an ejection. They eject too many player with these calls when a 15 yarder would probably be enough.

Pumafb

September 24th, 2016 at 11:19 PM ^

Why a penalty at all? The kid was clearly going for the ball. Is he supposed to stand there and watch the receiver catch it? The rule is dumb. Unintentional blows to the head are going to happen. If you don't want them, don't play football. How about some common sense is applied. It is clear when a defender is "targeting" the head of a defenseless player. It's obvious, so call it. If not, no call at all. Sorry, but that's football.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Brad23M

September 24th, 2016 at 6:43 PM ^

"Targeting" implies intent, i.e. aiming for a target.

If you can get ejected for accidentally having your dick fall out and slap someone in the helmet, then you need to rewrite the rule.

Point being : Incidental contact should not be a part of this rule.

GoBlueBill

September 24th, 2016 at 6:47 PM ^

I dont think it has been applied wrongly. Its just a poorly written, dumb rule .

This game is so fast . Just like Hockey. You go to make a hit , the person about to be hit moves . So rather than a legal hit, it becomes illegal.  Intent should really be a big part of it .

cloudman

September 24th, 2016 at 7:23 PM ^

I would say that the Targeting calls are being done with a low threshold to lower the risk of concussions. If you look at diagnostic tests, as the sensitivity of a test goes up, the specificity (i.e. No penalty call with no actual dangerous hits) goes down. The officials are going to make more targeting calls until questionable, risky hits goes down.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

teldar

September 24th, 2016 at 10:37 PM ^

I have no problems for a penalty for a forceful hit to the head. They need to make players think about NOT hitting eachother in the head. This was completely the intent of the rule. It's about teaching concern and preventing concussions, not just getting people seeking to injure others out of one game.