Targeting Targeting

Submitted by MaizeMN on

 I haven't heard an update on Rudock's injury or availability, but I'm curious (concerned) about the targeting penalty enforcement we've seen so far this season. Any Jake updates?

I thought the Rudock decapitation was the epitome of the rule, but it went uncalled and I don't remember the announcers even mentioning the word targeting relative to the incident. Is there a part of that play that made the non-call a no-brainer? Player impetus? Incidental contact? Divine right?

I didn't think the Ross penalty or the Bolden penalty were legit, so what was the difference and what has the BIG said concerning the uniformity of enforcement, if anything?

Finally, are there any proposed changes currently under consideration for next year? What ideas do you MGoBloggers have to maintain player safety while eliminating the current enforcement ambiguities? 

GO BLUE!

MGoBoard
Football

BlueCube

November 1st, 2015 at 2:47 PM ^

that saved them a call against Minnesota. They picked up the flag on the Ross tackle after Harbaugh went ballistic and you could see that he was comparing that hit to the tackle on Rudock.

Besides, I assume the replay official who reviews these plays would be isolated frrom Harbaugh even if he\she is blind as a bat.

Joined: 12/12/2013

MGoPoints: 45965

reshp1

November 1st, 2015 at 2:56 PM ^

I'm not saying he shouldn't ever complain or argue. But there were a lot of times this season where he flips out and then you watch the replay and is obvious he's wrong. It dilutes his ability to state his case when it's actually needed if he's doing it when it doesn't matter or when he's not completely sure he's correct.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

UMForLife

November 1st, 2015 at 2:50 PM ^

Wow. There is a first everything. Right? Now, we are concerned about him jawing with the refs. Last 4 years we were pissed off about our coach apologizing to everyone he can find. Actually, Harbaugh jawing got us out of one call I can think of in the fourth quarter.

Joined: 11/04/2013

MGoPoints: 63393

umchicago

November 1st, 2015 at 3:15 PM ^

was obviously a terrible call by a terrible crew.  we should stop using that as an example of targeting.

i think the jake slide against NW and Minn are iffy, but the sideline hit was definite.

personally, i think 15 yd penalties for head-to-head should be more common, but throwing a guy out for targeting should be rare (when intentional-looking or reckless).

Joined: 02/05/2009

MGoPoints: 33628

Black Socks

November 1st, 2015 at 2:20 PM ^

Targeting needs to be restricted to intentional hits.  Do you know how hard it is to stop full speed?

Joined: 11/30/2009

MGoPoints: 14363

Reader71

November 1st, 2015 at 4:54 PM ^

Some sort of committee that reviews targeting penalties after the game. Call a targeting, have the player tentatively scheduled to miss the next game, and make all cases subject to review by the league, trying to determine intent. Sort of like red cards in soccer, where particularly egregious tackles are subject to a further ban or an appeal.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Jonesy

November 1st, 2015 at 2:42 PM ^

Don't understand why people think Rudocks injury was targetting, if you think that is targetting then every tackle is targetting.  How is hitting someone in the back of the head with your body targetting?  Or hitting someone in the arm with your head?

Joined: 03/14/2012

MGoPoints: 10548

vablue

November 1st, 2015 at 3:32 PM ^

Because he hit him in the helmet with his helmet. I think most are upset with the inconsistent manner with which targeting is called. If Bolden was ejected against State, then the second targeting hit on Jake yesterday was beyond a doubt targeting.

Joined: 11/28/2011

MGoPoints: 6157

Maize n' Blue Grad

November 1st, 2015 at 4:07 PM ^

A player that possesses the ball can be hit in the head by another players helmet. It becomes targeting when the hit is on a defenseless player or when the defender uses the crown of the helmet. Rudock slid way too late to be protected by the "QB slide rule", so he wasn't defenseless. It was a good no call. If Jake had slid 2 steps earlier, then yes that would be targeting.
When Bolden was blocked into Cook, it looked like he was using the crown of his helmet to spear Cook who was already on the ground (thus defenseless), even though the refs missed him being pushed into Cook.

Joined: 10/25/2015

MGoPoints: 27

champswest

November 1st, 2015 at 2:50 PM ^

put Jake out was targeting. I do think that they could have called a personal foul for late hit or unnecessary roughness.

I do not think that there should be a mandatory ejection.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 25916