Coach O (LSU) Says the Coaches Need to Revist Targeting Rule
I don’t know for sure but this the first time I’ve a heard a coach say that the rule needs to be reviewed and I want to buy that man a beer. The application of the rule has become comical and the punishment for the rule is way too severe. Can this be embedded from a mobile device now?
October 24th, 2018 at 9:31 AM ^
Joe Bolden being thrown down by an offensive lineman (74) onto Connor Cook and his subsequent ejection for targeting is the single worst example of this rule. If the rule is really about player safety, for all players, then it should have been the offensive lineman who was penalized and ejected from the game.
October 24th, 2018 at 6:09 AM ^
Football is a game of constant, high-speed collisions. Part of the problem with targeting is that it tries to measure, judge and penalize player intent. Egregious, personal "Gholston" fouls are one thing. Incidental helmet-to-helmet contact at full game speed is quite another.
October 24th, 2018 at 7:06 AM ^
every week there are some egregious spearing hits (porter gustin) that go unflagged, and also un-reviewed. you have a case where in that same game a pac-12 admin-type overruled both the local and "command center" replay officials to overturn a targeting call.
i don't think the rule is the problem.
October 24th, 2018 at 7:07 AM ^
October 24th, 2018 at 7:16 AM ^
we nevr had a targuting rule when I were a kid and I terned out juts fine!?!/
sqwuirrel!!
October 24th, 2018 at 7:31 AM ^
Ha. Yeah, that old saw about "we didn't have X when I was a kid and I turned out fine" has really become nails on the chalkboard to me. If Nelson Mandela wants to say that, fine. But with most people who say that, I'm like, "are you sure?" And even if you turned out "fine," perhaps you could have turned out better.
Of course, that I have these thoughts probably makes me some kind of a-hole.
October 24th, 2018 at 7:42 AM ^
Pretti shir he wuz jus jok467.
October 24th, 2018 at 7:59 AM ^
Right, that's why I started my reply with "ha." But I appreciated the observation whether he was joking or not!
October 24th, 2018 at 7:53 AM ^
Would anyone be opposed to Harbaugh pulling all starters at half vs Indiana (assuming M is winning) to make sure we don't lose a Devin Bush or Hudson for the first half against OSU?
October 24th, 2018 at 8:31 AM ^
Indiana has taken us to overtime twice in the last 4 years. Starters are going to play a lot.
October 24th, 2018 at 10:36 AM ^
Tell me about it. Two overtime games, two wins in the final minute, one game that was closer than it should have been and one game where we gave up 550+ yards on defense.
Michigan/Indiana games have not been stress free since Lloyd Carr.
October 24th, 2018 at 8:21 AM ^
Not happening. Medical science and liability will keep it tight. Maybe minor revisions, but more likely increasing scope of application to include lineman, etc.
The game is going to continue to go the other way. The recent article from two WI Universities regarding repetitive head hits is just one example of what I am sure area lot of studies in the academic pipeline which will all show the same thing: Head hits lead to significant brain damage.
I would not be surprised if some day there is a polymer coating on the helmet that changes color when "significant force" (Criteria to come) is applied to the surface. Or, more likely, internal sensors collecting data which are monitored in the booth. More penalties and ejections are the likely future, which hopefully result in changes in teaching, technique, and outcome.
Absent something like that, we are moving toward what will look more like a hybrid of flag and tackle football, especially for anyone under the age of complete brain development, which is about 25, and particularly anyone under 18 (Minors).
October 24th, 2018 at 11:03 AM ^
There are already several different helmet sensor systems that measure impacts to the head. Our HS team uses them in practice as part of an ongoing study. In the spirit of John Beilein and reconciliation, here's a story about one system that was developed at MSU last year.
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-tackles-concussions-by-bringing-…
October 24th, 2018 at 12:21 PM ^
Would love to see your team's data.
October 24th, 2018 at 8:41 AM ^
Yeah, Da Coach O is being self-centered here, but his point is correct. That call was crap. However. The rule was applied per the letter of the law - the hit included facemask to facemask contact. Unfortunately, it was slight, incidental contact that the QB was bracing for (his hands were coming up, just didn't get there) and the LB was pulling up and also brought up his hands to deflect the blow. The actual facemask contact did nothing to affect the hit.
The officials were screwed either way because of the way the rule is written. That they opted to follow the letter, rather than the intent, is okay by me. Maybe it will help lead to a rewrite, where intent can be better defined somehow. Or, if nothing else, severity can be better determined.
I thought the LB got screwed, but I can't feel bad for him.
October 24th, 2018 at 9:00 AM ^
Counterintuitively, I believe this issue might best be resolved by getting rid of helmets...at least indestructible ones that aren't weapons themselves.
October 24th, 2018 at 9:31 AM ^
The game used to played without helmets, then without helmets that provided much support.
It's indeed counter intuitive to think that what didn't work in the past would work now. Playing without helmets led to quite a few deaths. It's still going to be a violent sport. Even if playing without helmets led to safe tackling technique, players on the ground are still going to have multiple players land on top of them, get kicked (inadvertently), etc.
And let's face it, removing helmets wouldn't eliminate players leading with their heads, hitting their opponents' in the head with shoulders and forearms. It would only lessen the frequency of those plays while increasing their danger exponentially. A horrible tradeoff. It's foolish to think there's an easy answer to this issue.
October 24th, 2018 at 9:31 AM ^
People used to be killed on the field without helmets...with much smaller players.
October 24th, 2018 at 1:30 PM ^
So the game will became either flag football or rugby?
I’m not trying to minimise player safety but as others have pointed out the game is much safer than it ever was. Can further adjustments make the game safer? Of course. But I feel like the only way to make the game “safe” from a head injury perspective is to fundamentally change the game.
October 24th, 2018 at 9:30 AM ^
The automatic ejection is stupid first of all. It should be just a 15 yard penalty for first offense, then second offense sit out a quarter.
October 24th, 2018 at 10:15 AM ^
That would lessen the impact of bad calls. But the entire point of the targeting rule is to change player behavior to make the game safer. It's going to take time for players and coaching to adjust. As it is, we still have a lot of targeting infractions. Watering the penalties way down won't help bring them down.
That's really the point in a nutshell. Fans and coaches support making the sport safer, right up until it detracts from the game in any way.
October 24th, 2018 at 11:27 AM ^
Time to adjust? It’s been years and you know what I see less of? Spearing. Remember that rule, when we used to let refs make a call that eliminated head hunting? They expanded that rule and it’s gone way too far. Guys are getting kicked out of games for inadvertent and minimal head to head contact. Officials know when a guy takes a run at another guy.
October 24th, 2018 at 12:56 PM ^
The targeting rule is hard. It's purpose is to take some dangerous plays out of the game, not just when there's malicious intent behind them. Maybe it would be fairer if longer suspensions were imposed when there was a clear intent. Just like suspensions can be imposed for various dirty plays. We're looking at you, #96 in green.
It's going to take some time because players are often operating on instinct. That's not easy to change, but it needs to be coached out of them at every level. It's happening, both because of the new rule and the safety concern behind it.
October 24th, 2018 at 10:26 AM ^
Hell yes it does
October 24th, 2018 at 10:51 AM ^
This is a better discussion of the issues than the usual fodder where people are just complaining and coming up with examples of bad applications. But, the bottom line is that football has to do something about concussions and spinal injuries, or there isn't going to be tackle football. And the carrot/stick has to be strong enough to change behavior quickly. Keep in mind that part of the intent of the rule is to change behavior to protect the "offending" player. When you lower your head, you risk breaking your neck.
October 24th, 2018 at 11:46 AM ^
Well he's not wrong, regardless of his reasons for bringing it up. Thought I read that he's got one of his best defenders out for a half against Bama.
I'm all for making the game safer, but this one strike and you're out policy is a little ridiculous. Unless you can reasonably assume that the player had the intent of going helmet to helmet the first time around, it's hard for me to justify kicking the player out of the game on the first offense. You have guys moving at lightning speed and sometimes they only have milliseconds to change from hitting someone in the head to hitting them in the chest. Or you have situations like the '15 MSU game where it looked like Joe Bolden could've been thrown into Cook. There's just way too much ambiguity to justify kicking a player out after only one offense.
If it were up to me:
1st offense - personal foul, 15 yard penalty, warning to the player who committed the hit. Unless you can reasonably assume it was done with malicious intent, then I'm in the "one strike and you're out" camp.
2nd offense - personal foul, 15 yard penalty, player is then ejected.
October 24th, 2018 at 12:04 PM ^
Coach O is a D line coach at heart and probably always will be. He's also the kind of guy who rips his shirt off in the locker room and yells "wild boys". I mean it's hardly surprising that he doesn't like any rule that makes it harder for 'his' guys on D to be effective.
The thing they need to change in football, if they're worried about the injury and long-term damage risk depleting the player pool, is the mentality on defense. Intimidation is such a big part of it that you sometimes wonder if defensive units are guys playing a sport or a crew of cut-throat mercenaries about to take down a village in the jungle with no quarter given. A lot of guys play D not to minimize the yardage gained by the opponent, but to inflict maximum possible damage on the opposing player. That has to change if they worry about player safety. Given how coaches like Coach O think and feel about the game, I don't think anything other than outlandishly harsh penalties actually even makes a dent in their approach.
October 24th, 2018 at 12:25 PM ^
Maybe if the targeting rule existed when Coach O played, we could understand him when he talks.
He probably thinks he's said, "one team, one heartbeat" one time.
/s
October 24th, 2018 at 5:02 PM ^
Coach O is right. The rule is terrible and the application is even worse. It's unfair to the players and sucking the life out of the sport.
I'd much rather have a player occasionally get concussed than make all big hits illegal.
October 24th, 2018 at 9:29 PM ^
He’d probably rather have a Four Loko. The original version.
https://twitter.com/JordanHeckFF/status/862325353586491396?s=20