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

CompleteLunacy

November 1st, 2015 at 2:31 PM ^

This is why I'm so livid with the rule and the 3 incidents against Rudock that went uncalled/overturned. Because both hits on Rudock were far more closer to targeting than this actually upheld targeting call where the TT defender actually wraps his arms on the tackle and never actually targets the Okie State player's head, even though technically their face masks collided on the hit.

Joined: 11/13/2010

MGoPoints: 12910

UNCWolverine

November 1st, 2015 at 2:54 PM ^

Football has a real problem on their hands with the targeting/defenseless player calls. Way too much abiguity with the rule along with it seeming arbitrary and clearly not consistent. As I type this a SD Charger safety was just flagged for hitting a defenseless TE and the TE barely even budged when he got hit.

Consussions have finally pushed these absurd rules into the game and I'd like to think that we'll look back at their attempts to increase player safety as a failed effort in a few years. Not saying the spirit of the rules are bad. But damn the intrepretation of them seems quite amiss at all levels.

Joined: 10/06/2008

MGoPoints: 23174

95civicex

November 1st, 2015 at 1:07 PM ^

Bolden's was definitely not legit.
I thought the Ross one was.

The Rudock slide, I thought was targeting, but I can see how that might be a Michigan fan bias.
In slow-motion replay it definitely looks like he targets Ruckock. At full speed, I thought it kind of looked like the Minnesota player would have been aimed for his midsection, Rudock sliding aided in the guy hitting him in the head.


I thought the hit Rudock took earlier in the game, when he got hit out of bouds was the exact definition of targeting, and have no idea how that wasn't called. To me, that was the most egregious no-call.

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 1783

Carcajou

November 1st, 2015 at 2:26 PM ^

I totally agree with you on the Bolden and Ross calls.

You make an excellent point:
"The Rudock slide, I thought was targeting, but I can see how that might be a Michigan fan bias."  Hard to be objective, but that is how you have to look at these things- give the other side the benefit of the doubt- or they will consume you. There's enough other things to get worked up about.

The one that knocked him out of the game looked like targeting in real time, but on replay, it "looked like the Minnesota player would have been aimed for his midsection", and Rudock slid into where the Minnesota player had launched himself. I  also felt and feel trying to pick up just a little more yardage, Rudock went into his slide just a little late.


Real time and on replay, the out of bounds hit also looked like targeting to me, and should have been called.

 

Joined: 02/26/2009

MGoPoints: 5768

kevin holt

November 1st, 2015 at 6:46 PM ^

I dunno, I think it's true that he might not have aimed for his head. But when you see your teammate is tackling and causing a slide, and you know it's the QB, you know there's a strong chance that leading with your helmet is gonna smash the QB in the upper body when he slides. You're taught to pop the ball out, but the risk-reward ratio needs to change.

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 17447

BigCat14

November 1st, 2015 at 8:29 PM ^

Rudock did not slide like he was giving up his run!  He really did not kick his legs forward or lean back until he made contact with the first player.  Because of his poor technique slide 1) it probably looked like to the big guy pursuing that he was not giving himself up 2) his failure to kick his legs out caused him to get them caught up under his body.  When he was hit on his top half by the big guy he was contorted because there was no slide/give in his legs to absorb the backside impact.  This is of course my opinion.  As I think that Rudock was not sure about sliding and half hearted it resulting in a defensive player mindset to continue and because of body position getting hurt.  We win and hopefully Jake is well going forward.  I am ready to see where we are as a team with Speight though.  If Jake is ready to go I will be indifferent as that is the energy he brings to the offense.  

This was in reply to 95civisex

Go Blue!

Joined: 09/14/2009

MGoPoints: 1141

Noahdb

November 1st, 2015 at 1:10 PM ^

Consdering how dire the circumstances are, it's inexcusable for the officials to be so random on calls/non-calls.

Eliminate the idiotic rule and just allow refs to call a personal foul. No reason for a bad call to linger until the next game.

Joined: 07/21/2008

MGoPoints: 477

Mr. Yost

November 1st, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^

It was knee jerk overreation rule, that is correct in spirit, but it wasn't implemented properly.

With all the money the NCAA has, they should've hired a bunch of independent folks that have to go through a specific training. Place one of these folks at every game and buzz down whenever a hit is in question.

You can't leave it solely up to the officials, because they can't see every angle. Look at what I posted above, the official is right there, but Rudock's left shoulder shields the helmet to helmet contact from the official so, from behind, it looks like he got shoved in the chest really hard or hit in the shoulder.

The booth has access to all of these angles.

They also need to be more consistent with the rule itself...I get throwing the flag and erring on the side of caution. But if nothing happened, you pick up the flag and no penalty. Many officials still leave the penalty, but they don't boot the player.

As for kicking the player out, you have to have intent, IMO...if a kick is pushed or if the offensive player lowers his head, etc. - you can call a penalty, but that's not the defenders fault. That's not the same as launching yourself trying to dislodge the ball...and THAT'S what the rule is trying to prevent. Guys using their bodies as weapons.

If it was intentional, or if a player is just reckless (like what you see above)...then he should be gone.

The Bolden play shouldn't have been anything. No flag, no kicked out of the game. The Ross play, IMO, should've been a 15 yarder, he stays on the field and play on.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

charblue.

November 1st, 2015 at 1:25 PM ^

last night that he thought he might have Jake back next week. According tot the coach, Rudock's injuries were "soft tissue" variety in the neck and shoulder areas. I'm sure there will be more definititve informaion available by tomorrow

As far as targeting is concerned, this is the second year in a row that Minnesota knocked out a Michigan quarterback. Last year's game featuredf a classic head-launching hit on Shane Morris that was never flagged as a personal foul or reviewed as targeting and yet became one of the most talked about plays in college football because of how Morris wooziness after the hit and confusion on substitution following it led to his return to the game and new concussion protocols afterward.

Last night, Rudock was twice contacted in the head area on separate plays without a flag. The first one near the sideline clearly should have been called for a penalty and reviewed for targeting with the next one that sent Rudock to the sideline more questionable but still a hit to a defenseless player in the head area in which the defender led with his facemask when making contact. The aftermath of the play in which no official flagged the contact led to a long huddle among crew members.

I didn't think the contact initially was subject to review. But after watching several replays in slow motion, you could see how Rudock was in a defenseless position when struck a second time by a defender who hit him in the facemask.

Last night, Bill Lemonier, a longtime respected Big Ten referee and crew chief, was on the ESPN telecast, but didn't comment on the hit. He was not the review official. He commented on a couple of plays but not the Rudock hits.

I haven't checked for sure, but I think the same crew who worked the Michigan-Minnesota game last year, worked it last night. If so, they missed the Morris call and missed the sideline hit last night. Atrocious.

Joined: 05/25/2010

MGoPoints: 11381

Monkey House

November 1st, 2015 at 1:26 PM ^

the acc comes out today and says they removed the crew from the UM vs Duke game. the Big Ten sits around with their thumb up their asses and does nothing about the shit refs this conference has.

Joined: 09/05/2014

MGoPoints: 43763

HateSparty

November 1st, 2015 at 1:32 PM ^

I wonder if there is a feeling that Harbaugh jealousy influences the officials. He is not loved or endeared by non Michigan fans. Could he get the short end of calls because of it?



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 12/17/2014

MGoPoints: 27143

BomTrady

November 1st, 2015 at 1:37 PM ^

The announcers aren't going to say anything against the refs because they are paid to be shills and boot lickers. They are not objective in the least. They only want to propagate the false notion that the refs know why they are doing.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/26/2015

MGoPoints: 1089

CorkyCole

November 1st, 2015 at 5:00 PM ^

Eh, I've heard plenty of live complaints by the announcers on crappy calls/miscalls by refs. The difference between the two is that announcers aren't paid to spot every penalty on the field while the refs are. Heck, when the announcers aren't sure of a call or just want to play it safe due to their lack of "professionalism" in regards to these matters, they usually defer the diagnosis to the "rule book specialist."

Joined: 06/13/2011

MGoPoints: 4498

Year of Revenge II

November 1st, 2015 at 2:33 PM ^

I have to respectfully disagree.  While I would not call the tackle on the slide a late hit, and agree with that aspect, it was head to head on a player who was defenseless, and did not have to be inflicted as such.  

While causing maximum pain is the whole point of a collision, this was head to head on a sliding player who was clearly going down.  Rudock is very fortumate not to have neck damage.  The hit was not late, but dirty IMO. Head to head makes him gone if I was the ref.  

No reasonably objecttive person can defend the sideline hit.  I, like you, believe it was late, and was head to head needlessly.  Player should be ejected.  

Joined: 11/12/2013

MGoPoints: 9188

Reader71

November 1st, 2015 at 4:46 PM ^

The slide was only helmet to helmet insofar as their helmets touch because they must. It was not a case of targeting. If he wanted to, he could have destroyed Rudock with the crown of his helmet. As it is, there is incidental contact. The "dirty" part was the way he wrapped up around the head and neck area. But to me, that's clean. Certainly not grounds for an ejection. The sideline hit could, and probably should, have been a targeting and an ejection, according to the way I've seen the rule called. But I would hate to see it called there, it just doesn't look dirty to me. I realize I'm fighting a losing battle, though. This thing is going the way of the dodo bird anyways.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Year of Revenge II

November 1st, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^

I concur that it was the way he wrapped up around the head and neck.  Just unnecessary to do to a guy who is alreay down, or in process of going down.  

I can see why you say head to head is "incidental", but then you are measuring intent, which is always subjective.  If you shoot a gun in a public place, you might not have intended to hit the defenseless child, but you WILL be convicted of intentional homicide.  People have to be held accountable for the natural consequences of their intentional actions.  

I feel the wrapping up was dirty.  As he did it, he bent Rudock's head and neck like a Play-Dough character.  It was head to head.  Case closed IMO.

The rule needs to go I agree.  Old men refs cannot seem to call it fairly, even when given a replay.  Bolden MSU had zero intent , and Ross at NW you can at least say he gives the receiver somewhat of a shoulder shot when he did not have to.  Guy was not hurt very badly at all, but  I can accept the penalty.  All those victims were defenseless at the time.  The MN lineman wrapping the head and neck felt dirty to me, just trying to injure, which he accomplished.

Whatever happened to fairness, respect for your competitor?  Hit him as hard as you can, but when he is defenseless?  No football game is worth that.

Never saw a better linebacker (college) than Jack Tatum.  Clean player.  Hit on Stingley as a pro was clean in the day.  Feel bad for Tatum; feel even worse for Stingley.  

Rule should be if you try to injure a defenseless player, you have to go.  Don't ask me how to write it.  Don't ask me how to try to find a sensible enough official to enforce it.  

 

 

Joined: 11/12/2013

MGoPoints: 9188