FBS Coaches Considering Splitting Targeting into 2 Categories

Show All Comments

Byaaaahhh's picture

I'm for it. Anything would help the awful enforcement of this terrible rule and this is a decent change in my eyes.

(Terrible in its implementation, not the intent).

HS
ChicagoBuckeye10's picture

(Terrible in its implementation, not the intent)

Spot on.

HS
Dignan's picture

This needs to happen. For the life of me, I will never understand the targeting rule as currently constituted and implemented. The TCU player that hit Dwayne in the head should have been called for targeting, as should the UM player who did the exact same thing. But I don't think either player should have been ejected. 

There were, however, several targeting calls in one of the few bowl games I watched this year: LSU v. UCF. That game was gross, and I was definitely concerned for the safety of the players on the field. There were lots of dirty and malicious hits - not all of them called - that deserved ejection, in my opinion.

On the run from Johnny Law...ain’t no trip to Cleveland.

HS
BrutusB's picture

I’ve always understood the point of the rule, but why it wasn’t set up like flagrant fouls in basketball has been crazy to me. If a guy purposely launches at a guys head, then yes he should be ejected. If a defender grazes the head while they’re both falling to the ground he shouldn’t be ejected. This isn’t complicated. 

HS
PhillyNut's picture

You beat me to this posting!  I also liked in the article that they are against scheduling college games on Friday nights and are looking at ways to curtail that from happening.

Along with supporting changes to how targeting is handled, FBS coaches also expressed unanimous support against playing games on Friday nights.

"Friday nights should be a sanctuary for our high school football programs, and they should be free of college distractions," Berry said. "While we recognize that there are opportunities presented where our coaches aren't in the decision-making process, we continually ask others who are scheduling these college football games on Friday night to be concerned about it."

I don't buy one goddam drop of gas in the state of Michigan!

HS
QuadCitiesBuckeye's picture

FBS coaches also expressed unanimous support against playing games on Friday nights

I bet YTown will be happy when he sees this

Shandy is not beer

HS
QuadCitiesBuckeye's picture

Is "potential suspension" simply referring to the current 1/2 game suspension following a targeting ejection, or would this be an additional suspension/extension-of the 1/2 game ban?

Shandy is not beer

HS
BrutusB's picture

I think “potential suspension” is already on the books but rarely (if ever) used. Probably reserved for intentionally concussing a guy or multiple hits in consecutive games after warnings. 

HS
IBLEEDSCARLETANDGRAY's picture

If they had split the targeting calls into 2 categories in the first place we wouldn't have seen:

Bradley Roby's bullshit ejection against Iowa in 2013 
Joey Bosa's bullshit ejection against Notre Dame in the 2016 Fiesta Bowl
Denzel Ward's extremely bullshit ejection against Maryland last year
Nick Bosa's bullshit ejection against Iowa last year
Jordan Fuller's bullshit ejection against Nebraska this year (though without that Brendon White doesnt emerge)

"You're the patron saint of the totally effed" - Hot Tub Time Machine

HS
QuadCitiesBuckeye's picture

Never underestimate a B1G Official's ability to misunderstand, misapply or otherwise screw up the implementation of the rules

Shandy is not beer

HS
hetuck's picture

Considering your handle, ask Iowa State. B1G targeting calls went a long way to screwing their bowl chances. 

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.

Vince Lombardi

HS
BrutusB's picture

Bosas ejection would have gotten him tossed regardless. He left his feet and hit the head with the crown of his helmet. It sucked because it was his last game, but the call was pretty textbook. 

HS
avail31678's picture

No, Bosa's head hit the guy's chest and he did not leave his feet.  ~ 50 second mark:

HS
avail31678's picture

Here's a better snapshot (at least on my screen it shows it paused at the right spot).  And he's mid-step, not launching off of his feet.

EDIT: Nevermind, same initial snapshot.  Right at the :51 - :52 mark Bosa's head is on the guy's arm/chest and not even touching the ND guys helmet.

HS
BrutusB's picture

You don’t have to hit the head first. Leading with the crown is always going to get that flag. It’s also incredibly dangerous for the defender himself. 

HS
OSU_JD's picture

The upper "forehead" of the helmet is not the crown, Brutus. 

HS
avail31678's picture

I'm not disputing leading with the head.  I'm just stating that he neither left his feet nor hit the guy's head.

HS
OSU_JD's picture

That ejection sticks out in my mind as the one that turned me against the targeting rule.  Now that I am looking at it, it's even more egregious he was ejected.  That was not targeting.  And if I recall correctly, Spielman was defending the ejection on air, and I was going crazy. 

HS
avail31678's picture

OSU_JD, that's kinda where I stand.  It's clear to me this was not what was intended with targeting.  I agree that you don't want guys leading with their helmet (think Shazier), but in the interests of this forum topic, this would absolutely be in the category of NOT getting ejected (and IMO maybe not a flag at all).  

HS
exnwohiobuckfan's picture

Under the rule, that was targeting. He led with the crown of the helmet and his arms didn’t even come around until well after contact. People need to remember that the rule was put in place to protect the targeter as well as targeted. 

HS
OSU_JD's picture

He led with the crown of the helmet

Nope.  He led with the upper front of the helmet. 

Look at the sketch here and tell me that was leading with the "crown"

https://www.hairtransplantmentor.com/what-is-the-crown/

HS
hetuck's picture

And he appeared to be pulling back. It was not a full force tackle like he put on Mariota. 

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.

Vince Lombardi

HS
JarheadBuck's picture

I want to see some "impact of the hit" built into consideration of the penalty. 

If the "victim" of a targeting call hit stays in the game, it wasn't a massive hit.  Maybe 15 yards

If they go out for a play or two, ok it was a heavy hit.  Maybe 15yd, they stay out until the victim come back and they get 1st unsportsmanlike.

If they get carted off...damn, that was a hammer job.  Ejected.

HS
avail31678's picture

So everyone who takes a hit will "sit out" a play or two.  You can't base it on that or every player will pretend to be rattled.  

HS
JarheadBuck's picture

If they do, the "Targeter" gets to come back when they do.

HS
outdoorbuckeye's picture

That wouldn't work very well imo. Some people can take a hit harder than others. Also there may be other players in on the tackle that may make an injury worse. I think they need to a better job looking for intent. I also believe it should be called on both players if they both lower their head.

HS
BuckeyeInOrlando's picture

3rd category: Ohio State

Any "big hit" by Ohio State will be deemed illegal and result in immediate disqualification of the offending player, plus a 15 yard penalty or half the distance to the goal, whichever is greater. 

HS
kmp10's picture

Targeting is the single most poorly officiated rule in all of sports. The on-field officials are wholly unprepared with regard to it, and the replay official is woefully inept in his obligation to fix what those reffing the game screw up. This rule has ruined the ends of players careers (Joey Bosa Vs ND), needlessly ejected players for good, clean blocks/hits (Corey Smith Vs Wisconsin), and unnecessarily impacted the outcomes of games. It is a horrible rule because it is nearly impossible to prevent helmet to helmet collisions at times in football games. Are there players who are clearly using their helmet as a weapon and launching into the opposing player's head/neck area? Yes, and those players are the ones who should be penalized. Are there INFINITELY more players who are unable to manipulate their bodies in mid-fucking-air so as to prevent their helmet from impacting an opposing player's helmet and who clearly had no intent to harm the player being tackled or to use their headgear as a weapon? Absolutely. Bad rule, terrible enforcement of a bad rule, horrible oversight in ignoring what is clearly a dreadful, nonsensical rule. 

When I die, sprinkle my ashes over the 70's 

HS
OSU_JD's picture

Targeting is the single most poorly officiated rule in all of sports.

Pass Interference would like a word with you. 

HS
ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

I'd be OK with this.  I've always felt that targeting is something that's better left to a "you know it when you see it" interpretation, rather than trying so much to define what it is to where you're including hits that really aren't egregious.  

A 15 yard penalty is what it is...sucks, but certainly not insurmountable.  To lose a player, though...for the rest of the game and maybe the 1st half of the next game...that's a huge deal.  If you're going to kick a player out of the game, you better get it right...under the current targeting rule, way too often, they don't get it right.  I think a deal where you reserve ejections for blatantly dirty, egregious targeting is a good thing.  Most of the targeting calls that we see would be just the 15 yard variety.  I haven't seen too many where it's like "yeah he should be kicked out, there was no need for that".  

I hope they change it.  I mean when it seems like the vast majority of fans and even the media pundits friggin hate the rule...you should probably consider changing it.

Class of 2010.

HS
JohnnyKozmo's picture

I was under the impression the rule actually started this way.  I was even texting with a ref buddy of mine who confirmed it.  They removed the 15yd penalty only type, because it was too hard to determine intent and all that other mess that would lead to the ejection. 

You're too stupid to have a good time. -Dalton

HS
OSU_JD's picture

Yes, good!  I had that memory too!  But I do not remember when it was changed.  I remember watching a game and saying, "wait...that's not the rule...I thought there was an 'egregious' kind versus an 'incidental' kind."

I don't understand why you get rid of that.  I don't think it's that hard to interpret an egregious hit.  They used to do this with face masks:  there was an incidental and a 'flagrant' kind.  It worked.  Never understood why they got rid of that one, either. 

HS
TShell's picture

Unanimous support from coaches, hard to get that on much of anything. This is a no brainer.

So obviously, the NCAA has to muck it up somehow, and we already kmow how. This won't be implemented for the 2019-20 season because...it wasn't brought up soon enough for implementation this next season. 7+ months away from the first game. It will be discussed at the next meetings in October from what I saw.

HS