Targeting the Targeting Rule

Submitted by ABOUBENADHEM on

So, one of the more frustrating adventures for UM fans last year was the random and seemingly one-sided targeting calls, and/or non-calls.  We seemed to be on the wrong side of virtually every targeting call.  The fact that they all get thoroughly reviewed, supposedly under some common microscope, only heightened our frustrations!  A question for the board:     How does college football improve this process?   

The Fugitive

June 14th, 2016 at 4:43 PM ^

replay officials have to do a better job.

Bolden was pushed.

Rudddock was nearly decapitated several times. I recall one of the 15yd PF flags was picked up even tho he was drilled in the face and had his chip strap across his eyes.

JoJo5285

June 14th, 2016 at 5:16 PM ^

That was still the most confusing call of 2015, they went to review for targeting and determined it wasnt targeting, I am fine with that. But like you said there is no way that wasnt still a personal foul for roughing the passer.  

The replay officials have to do a better job of determining that the player lined up and tried to deliberatly hurt the other player, its football sometimes your going to hit the helmet and that cant be ruled as targeting.  

B1G_Fan

June 14th, 2016 at 6:15 PM ^

If the game announcers get the call right most of the time and in half the time the officials take, maybe give them a say. Let them call the official in the booth over and say hey look at this. Start fining officials heavily for blown calls, The calls that reviewed several times and still called wrong.

A Fan In Fargo

June 14th, 2016 at 7:48 PM ^

I'm telling you guys, these guys doing the jobs are getting paid or hate UM. You can't kill that with a gun.(the movie Shooter reference) Or else it could be that all of these guys doing this stuff just really suck at their jobs and should be replaced. I really hate Ohio and USC. I think they are a bunch of dipshits. That's just me but if I'm a replay official I'm not going to ever play the cards for anyone. You get what you get. Unfortunately for UM it's probably going to be a lot more bullshit calls because they'll kicking the absolute crap out of everyone. The haters really hate that stuff.

McSomething

June 14th, 2016 at 4:47 PM ^

Every player that hit someone from Michigan had the flag picked up upon review. Every call against a Michigan player was allowed to stand. In almost every instance of each it was an awful decision.

KungFury

June 14th, 2016 at 4:49 PM ^

1 Establish a definition for targeting that is clear enough that different conferences and crews don't have to read between the lines how to enforce it.

2 Follow the NFL and have a centralized location for replays. You don't need everything to flow through them, but they should have the ultimate say and be able to trump local decisions. That would give you consistency between conferences.

Those are unrealistic and won't happen because different conferences each do their own thing.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Two Hearted Ale

June 15th, 2016 at 7:40 AM ^

To clarify, I think referees on the field should make unsportsmanlike conduct calls just as they do now but "targeting" can be left to replay officials. In other words, the determination of kicking someone out of the game can be made by an impartial official without coaches, fans, and players influencing the decision. There is no time constraint either.

Jack Hammer

June 14th, 2016 at 4:52 PM ^

Connected helmets to measure impact.  More camera angles.  Centralized review team with "professionals" who are given training and performance metrics.

stephenrjking

June 14th, 2016 at 5:30 PM ^

Connected helmets are a completely separate issue. 

But the technology either exists or can exist in short order to collect massive amounts of data on the impacts endured by football players and should be implemented. And, as data comes in, use the data live to assess the health of players. These are huge issues and we are flying blind and we do not have to.

drzoidburg

June 14th, 2016 at 6:18 PM ^

i agree with this. It's way too open to interpretation and unlike similar opinion penalties, like roughing the passer, it's way too punitive to leave to interpretation. They are trying to pretend that football is safe because the lawyers told them to. It doesn't fool me though, not with the OL and RBs getting their heads knocked every single play

Credit812

June 14th, 2016 at 4:53 PM ^

Make a targeting call more akin to a yellow card in soccer. (or the flagrant foul calls in the NBA playoffs) -  Not an immediate ejection, but if you get enough calls, you are kicked out of the next game.  Every targeting call is reviewed after the game at a centralized location.

drzoidburg

June 14th, 2016 at 6:22 PM ^

but then it's like a claim that concussions aren't THAT dangerous and the lawsuits commence (or so their lawyers tell them)

another huge problem i have is it seems to go way beyond deterring big hits to the point that diving tackles are gone. I definitely recall plays last year the defense allowed a receiver to score a TD instead of dive for the hit. It's definitely negatively impacting the game

also the insincerity of it all....if you want safe football, let's see how many turn up and pay $60 to see a game of 2 hand touch

Kwitch22

June 14th, 2016 at 5:01 PM ^

I know what they shouldn't do, leave the rule exactly the same as it was. Which, is exactly what they did. The reasoning is solid though, they needed to try to vote down camps that help kids. Bravo Ncaa, bravo.

WestCBlue

June 14th, 2016 at 5:08 PM ^

of a 3 yard box from LOS.

That way, players will get the message quickly to stop doing it.

Before you go postal on me, Rugby avoids head contact at very high rates.

stephenrjking

June 14th, 2016 at 5:32 PM ^

I kind of agree. A much stronger rule may be necessary here. Make every player shy away from head-on contact not because they're afraid of injury (an impulse that is not reliable in adrenalized competitors) but because the mistake will cost their team yards. 

Will it unpleasantly change the game? Yeah. You know what else is unpleasant? CTE.

trueblueintexas

June 14th, 2016 at 7:23 PM ^

Everything can be learned over time with enough incentive. I had to learn to play basketball with a non-existent rotator cuff because I had destroyed it multiple times. It took a couple hard lessons, but my instinct to protect it eventually started to win out over my instinct to use it. I would expect current players to say it is impossible to avoid head to head hits because they have not been forced to do it yet. If they passed a hard line rule, I bet players a few years from now would have a different take on that answer. Head to head hits will happen in a sport like football, the goal in passing a hard line rule is to reduce as much as possible the consistency of those hits, not to guarantee an elimination of them all together.

trueblueintexas

June 14th, 2016 at 10:16 PM ^

Your response is one born out of the current environment and doesn't address the true goal. Yes, there will head on collisions That happen even with the most draconian of rules which still allow tackling, but it you continue to teach not to lead with the head and penalize the action when it does happen, over time there will be fewer than there are today. That is what is in the best interest of the players when it comes to CTE. It is the repeated volume of hits, not just the single big ones. The goal is to reduce the quantity not just the ferocity. You will never get rid of all, but that shouldn't mean you give up on reducing what you can.

Michigan4Life

June 15th, 2016 at 6:14 AM ^

You can reduce it but hard collision will happen because players are bigger, stronger and faster than in the past and that will lead to a higher potential for head injuries even with correct techniques due to the speed of the game.

One player that I know has excellent techniques which is rugby style tackling yet he has multiple concussions because it's nearly impossible not to have a big collision with his head.

Your point is about making the game safer which is a totally different point than the topic mentioned above.  My point is that it's nearly impossible not to make contact with the opposing team's head or make a big hit at full speed which would make it nearly impossible to determine if it's targeting or not. Targeting is a stupid rule right from the start and always has been.

Wolfman

June 14th, 2016 at 5:24 PM ^

As you said, these were clear, one way or the other upon review, either targeting or not. Obviously when there cannot be a collective decision, which is stupid because everyone watching concludes the same, penalize the officials, there is something going through their minds that has nothing to do with the penalty and everything to do with the team it's called on This forces a decision and when it's clear they deliberately favored one team, this is a fucking NO-NO. . Let them go a week without a paycheck, they will soon figure out they had better call the penalty as described in the rule book. 

JamieH

June 14th, 2016 at 6:10 PM ^

Incidental targeting (i.e. helmet-to-helment contact like the old days) should be a 15-yard penalty.

 

Egregious targeting with an intent to injure (i.e. spearing) should be an ejection.  So if a defender launches himself head-first like a missle at someone's head, well then you can kick him out. 
 

 

Right now you are just randomly kicking guys out because an offensive player ducks before contact.   It's ridiculous. 

drjaws

June 14th, 2016 at 7:06 PM ^

I am with the "get rid of it" crowd for the sole reason we have guys running with the ball ducking into tackles and getting plowed in the head and it looks kinda like an intentional shot to the head by the defender when slowed way down over and over again in slow mo.

I think it's typically pretty clear when it is an intentional head shot vs unintentional



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

JTGoBlue

June 14th, 2016 at 7:16 PM ^

I recall that we had one game with really egregious one-sided calls related to targeting. However, the whole game was a complete fuck job of officiating.

So we may be a little jaded about it...my opinion is that there is the right intent with the rule; however their needs to be easily visible criteria for it, indisputable video evidence, and non-biased and/or non-moronic officials for the review process.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

maizenblue87

June 14th, 2016 at 7:54 PM ^

I'm all for greater safety in the game, but this rule was incredibly frustrating last year. Michigan got hosed multiple times and I bet other schools suffered likewise. Officials seemed to have no clue.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

thomar2k1

June 14th, 2016 at 8:45 PM ^

My thought is if it's called on the field, it's 15-yards. Full stop. The only call made in the booth is ejection or not. If you are flagged for targeting it's like the unsportsmanlike rules where 2 and you are out.

Let the booth do a yellow/red card system if no flag is thrown.