Hudson Targeting

Submitted by goblue4321 on September 22nd, 2018 at 5:50 PM

I’m so sick of this targeting rule. It should not be an immediate ejection. Should be personal foul 15 yard penalty, if it happens again same player same game ejection. My question is why havnt college coaches fought this rule against the ncaa? I find it unfair to the players when 90% of time the player didn’t mean to target....who agrees?

Comments

ST3

September 22nd, 2018 at 5:59 PM ^

I saw 6 or 7 Nebraska hits that were worse, but they were behind by a bazillion points so I guess helmet to helmet hits aren’t targeting in that situation. But when John O’Neill’s crew sees a helmet to sternum hit (or a Michigan defender blocked into the QB’s ankle,) they see that as an opportunity to make a statement about player safety.

reshp1

September 22nd, 2018 at 11:43 PM ^

The difference is QBs are considered defenseless as they're throwing the ball, so it's a much lower bar for targeting in that situation. You only need "forceable contact to the head or neck area," which Hudson definitely made.

 

That said, it is absurd that there's no discretion or differentiation between malicious hits and accidental contact. There should be 2 levels of penalties and ejection/suspension should only be applied in the most egregious cases.

crg

September 22nd, 2018 at 6:12 PM ^

This question is not about what is/is not targeting, but is the penalty appropriate?  As we all witnessed last week (and numerous other times), a player can be ejected for a completely uninententional, incidental collision (per the discretion of the officials).

Blue_by_U

September 22nd, 2018 at 10:55 PM ^

XM for me, and I think by response, a lot of fans the issue isn't so much weather it is the same or different, other than..if Michigan is being penalized, it seems to be called with frequency leading to ejection. If other teams make similar contact against a Michigan offensive player, it's not called. 

What bothers me further..and perhaps the idiocy of HOW the penalty is described, and currently called...it is more of a punishment for some, and not for others rather than a true safety issue. If it is GENUINELY about student athlete safety, the targeting against Mason as shown in the tweet is certainly targeting. Driving the crown of a helmet directly against the side of another player's helmet is as if not more dangerous than the crown of a helmet hitting the ankle of an open field quarterback flopping on the ground...just my opinion on how this has affected us as a team.

 

By no means am I excusing Hudson, stop using the damn crown of your helmet...period. 

Reader71

September 23rd, 2018 at 12:37 AM ^

The problem is that the penalty is written as if it was an injunction against a specific type of hit that breaks a specific set of rules, but it is actually just "no kill shots". They can't come out and say that, though, because no one likes over-broad, under-delineated rules. So they just give us a pretend rule and continue to eject people for kill shots, whether they actually comport with the written rule or not. 

EGD

September 23rd, 2018 at 12:18 PM ^

He lowered his head and struck with the crown of the helmet.  That’s why it’s a dangerous hit and a foul.  When a tackler lowers his head, he risks a spinal/neck injury to himself and makes the helmet a weapon that increases the concussion risk to the ballcarrier.  Hudson just needs to learn to keep his head up.

Mgoscottie

September 22nd, 2018 at 5:56 PM ^

A full game is excessive with the way it's being called.  Current quarter and the next would be a big improvement but I'd be ok with it reverting to a 15 yard penalty.  

Gameboy

September 22nd, 2018 at 6:21 PM ^

I don't think the penalty is too harsh. This rule is for his own safety. Tackling like that is going to cause concussions and if he keeps it up, he may end up with CTE. He needs to learn not to tackle with his head. Hopefully the harshness of the penalty will discourage him in the future.

JonnyHintz

September 22nd, 2018 at 6:27 PM ^

It doesn’t discourage players when they call it on plays where the contact is incidental and there’s no intent behind it. It’s very rare when there’s a legitimate “he should be tossed” targeting. 

Last week Hudson gets a bogus targeting that should have never been called, he has to miss the rest of that game and half of the game today. It was ridiculous and the penalty is far too harsh for what actually occurs. 

JDeanAuthor

September 22nd, 2018 at 5:56 PM ^

That was Pat Fitzgerald’s idea when the rule first started, and I agree completely. An ejection should only occur after repeat occurrences. The 15 yard penalty is punishment enough.

Interesting sidenote: I’ve had players who say that the best chance for a concussion comes from the head bouncing off the turf after a tackle, and not the tackle itself.

CFraser

September 22nd, 2018 at 6:04 PM ^

Idk the rule is way too ambiguous. I just watched a Texas rusher literally punch the passer in the face to knock him down and it was reviewed and called off. 

FWIW this one was at least kinda understandable. Last week was a crime.

Pepper Brooks

September 22nd, 2018 at 6:06 PM ^

Question: if you're wearing a helmet and leaning forward while running, how can you NOT be leading with the crown of the helmet?  Especially since the crown of the helmet is now pretty much the entire helmet, if I understand correctly.

The Mad Hatter

September 22nd, 2018 at 6:10 PM ^

Anyone that tries to change the rule is going to get hit with "why don't you want to protect the children? Hey everybody, this asshole over here wants children* to get concussions"

*children being everyone under 25 in 2018

Bambi

September 22nd, 2018 at 6:11 PM ^

Disagree completely. These type of hits need to be gone. Clearly Hudson didn't learn after being ejected last week, so he definitely wouldn't learn from anything less. If he doesn't want to be ejected, he shouldn't target.

ST3

September 22nd, 2018 at 6:18 PM ^

How long is the Nebraska QB’s neck? I had no idea it extended all the way down to the middle of his chest. That was a ridiculous call. They clearly singled him out because Harbaugh complained about last week. There were multiple helmet-to-helmet hits perpetrated by Huskers that weren’t called. The call against Hudson was a case of selective enforcement and was capricious in its application. You might say the officials targeted him.

MTH1993

September 22nd, 2018 at 6:13 PM ^

I agree last week was questionable but today did clearly fit the rule. My question is how much of nw does Hudson have to sit? Some folks around me in the stands we saying he is out for the whole game. What us the rule?