Targeting rule/penalties
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)?
September 24th, 2016 at 4:44 PM ^
there's a football game going on chief, worry about it later
September 24th, 2016 at 4:52 PM ^
General comment, not specific to today's game.
September 24th, 2016 at 5:19 PM ^
Suuuure
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 24th, 2016 at 5:29 PM ^
Because what happened in our game did not cause you to post this thread.
September 24th, 2016 at 11:25 PM ^
the call is was so bad.
September 24th, 2016 at 4:46 PM ^
Sound familiar PSU fans?
September 24th, 2016 at 5:23 PM ^
Ouch
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 24th, 2016 at 8:39 PM ^
Hahaha! Well played sir. Well played.
September 24th, 2016 at 4:48 PM ^
Garbage rule but fuck penn state
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 24th, 2016 at 4:51 PM ^
Dear Penn State:
Fuck you.
Love,
Karma
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 24th, 2016 at 4:52 PM ^
two guys dive for the ball. offensive guy's head gets hit. targeting. dumb call, even though anything bad happening to PSU feels right.
September 24th, 2016 at 4:53 PM ^
Hey Schiano, do you need a "How's my driving?" sitcker?
September 24th, 2016 at 5:21 PM ^
He needs a "Student Hitter" sticker.
September 24th, 2016 at 5:15 PM ^
Especially harmful to them given no LB's
September 24th, 2016 at 5:32 PM ^
I feel bad for the player out. But I feel nothing for Penn State. The program and their cult fans can go to hell.
September 25th, 2016 at 5:48 PM ^
Yes but this will happen to an innocent Michigan player next week or whenever. The rule fails so badly either as a deterrent or justice that it's guaranteed to fuck over every team every season
September 24th, 2016 at 4:52 PM ^
I know Griese wants to seem unbiased, but his whole "there was no intent there" on the PSU targeting was dumb. How does anyone know intent???
September 24th, 2016 at 4:54 PM ^
Intent shouldn't matter, but the penalty shouldn't end the player's day.
September 24th, 2016 at 5:30 PM ^
This is my beef with that worst rule in football. First time offenders should not be ejected. If the same guy gets called again in the same game, THEN eject him. That is more fair.
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.
September 24th, 2016 at 5:01 PM ^
Because the guy was clearly playing the ball. It was a terrible application of the rule.
September 24th, 2016 at 5:16 PM ^
That is not the spirit of the rule.
September 24th, 2016 at 5:20 PM ^
Well, I have working eyes. So there's that.
September 24th, 2016 at 4:53 PM ^
on that call, he was going for the ball not the player! Rule needs to be changed!
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.
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.
September 24th, 2016 at 5:25 PM ^
If only those other teams were msu and osu
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 24th, 2016 at 5:32 PM ^
PSU is just as good
September 24th, 2016 at 5:00 PM ^
nobody knows.
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
September 24th, 2016 at 5:15 PM ^
That was a bad call plain and simple!
September 24th, 2016 at 5:20 PM ^
I'm too rulebound.
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".
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.
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.
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.
September 24th, 2016 at 6:18 PM ^
That's what I don't understand. The call was correct by the rule. Any forcible contact to the head is targeting. The rule may be shitty but the call was correct.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 24th, 2016 at 6:36 PM ^
Wow... miss the memo? We're discussing whether or not the rule is a good one or not, not whether or not the call was correct. Jack....
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
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
September 24th, 2016 at 6:13 PM ^
I would change it by watching the F'ing game and not posting during.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 24th, 2016 at 6:38 PM ^
says the person posting during the game
September 24th, 2016 at 8:28 PM ^
Too easy of a response. Rejected. Try again.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 24th, 2016 at 6:31 PM ^
There - that was targeting in Lewis
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
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.
September 24th, 2016 at 7:07 PM ^
escalated quickly
September 24th, 2016 at 8:29 PM ^
To be fair, I still think slapping someone in the helmet with your genitalia is unwise, painful, and warrants an ejection. It just shouldn't be called "Targeting".
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 .
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
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.
September 24th, 2016 at 7:52 PM ^
Always has been. The rule should only be for intentional headhunting.