Targeting Bull Crap
- Thread starter And1Hawk
- Start date
Throw me into the side of supporting the call. According to the rule, it was called correctly. He lowered his head and the first contact was head to head. That's checkpoint 1 and 2 in the rulebook. Thus the flag and the ejection.
I can see the argument that he tried to move his head aside. But he still lowered it. Lowering your head is not correct tackling technique, nor is it legal anymore. And at this point Gerry needs to know. He has demonstrated a tendency to push the rules and he was caught (again).
Teams with losing records should not go to bowls. So, no it is not time to put that to bed.
I still can't get over that call. That is hands down one of the worst targeting calls I have ever seen. Not surprised to see an ACC crew at the helm, they seem to miss most calls and are always trying to "over officiate" the big bowl games.
The reason they put this rule in is to protect the players? How was Gerry going to hurt the UCLA player?? He didn't launch himself upward towards his head. He didn't coming flying in head down high???
He wrapped up the player and turned his head. He didn't "line him up" and tee off on him. He made a solid form tackle.
Those officials should of taken a long look at that and decided that it was a legal tackle. Yes he might of wrapped high, but he wrapped his arm around the player. Look at Iowa's safeties, they are the definition of targeting some times, but they somehow get away with it. In the Big Ten Title I thought both Lomax & Taylor could of been ejected for hits. They were flying around and hitting hard, but a couple of them were high.
The reason they put this rule in is to protect the players? How was Gerry going to hurt the UCLA player?? He didn't launch himself upward towards his head. He didn't coming flying in head down high???
He wrapped up the player and turned his head. He didn't "line him up" and tee off on him. He made a solid form tackle.
Those officials should of taken a long look at that and decided that it was a legal tackle. Yes he might of wrapped high, but he wrapped his arm around the player. Look at Iowa's safeties, they are the definition of targeting some times, but they somehow get away with it. In the Big Ten Title I thought both Lomax & Taylor could of been ejected for hits. They were flying around and hitting hard, but a couple of them were high.
Anybody that thinks that was a proper form tackle should just stay out of football conversations
Contact to the head of receivers was removed from the game. He made head to head contact. It doesn't get any more clear than that
Contact to the head of receivers was removed from the game. He made head to head contact. It doesn't get any more clear than that
Then get rid of some bowl games. They got offered a bowl game, they went and they won. If not them then it would have been a different 5 win team. The only way to stop this from happening is to have fewer bowl games. If they would have lost I'd be all for making fun of them but they didn't. They won, good for them, we'll see them next year.
That was barely helmet to helmet contact and did not warrant any penalty. It was not a "textbook" tackle but was still a very well made play. There is no way you're going to get rid of helmet to helmet contact, it happens on every play.
And to think that in the B1G championship game when Kittle was far more defenseless, and the helmet to helmet was plain, and very violent, it was not called . . . what a joke.
I watched the game last night. Nate Gerry's targeting call was the worst call I think I've ever seen in college football. Referees totally misinterpreted the rule.
This is a contact sport and heads are going to hit, not so much in this case however. If you need to throw the flag at least make it reviewable and get rid of the ejection BS in all cases!!
The hit:
The rule:
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
I can't I agree with the rule, but what I didn't realize is that the hit doesn't have to be helmet to helmet. Also, the part "when in question, it is a foul" makes me feel that there could actually be more called. Hopefully something is done to redefine the rule. I'm OK with the penalty in most cases, but I don't agree with ejections at all.
The rule:
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
I can't I agree with the rule, but what I didn't realize is that the hit doesn't have to be helmet to helmet. Also, the part "when in question, it is a foul" makes me feel that there could actually be more called. Hopefully something is done to redefine the rule. I'm OK with the penalty in most cases, but I don't agree with ejections at all.
You are saying the receiver was defenseless? He turned and was heading upfield.The hit:
The rule:
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
I can't I agree with the rule, but what I didn't realize is that the hit doesn't have to be helmet to helmet. Also, the part "when in question, it is a foul" makes me feel that there could actually be more called. Hopefully something is done to redefine the rule. I'm OK with the penalty in most cases, but I don't agree with ejections at all.
I
I played offense - but in tackling drills since grade school we were taught to tackle with our heads up and drive our legs into the opponent while wrapping up. The helmet contact was incidental and was caused more by the receiver quickly turning his head downfield than the defender. The tackle was high, but he appears taller and did bend his knees.
I played offense - but in tackling drills since grade school we were taught to tackle with our heads up and drive our legs into the opponent while wrapping up. The helmet contact was incidental and was caused more by the receiver quickly turning his head downfield than the defender. The tackle was high, but he appears taller and did bend his knees.
Looking at it again, I am starting to think the ball carrier made an adjustment a split second before Gerry arrived. Might be why he made the late head adjustment. I don't see bad intent on his part. Still a penalty per the rule, and still not a form tackle. And certainly not something a ref can account for in real time.
It wasn't a form tackle per say, but that was one of the "better tackles" i have seen in college football.
Helmets are going to hit, its football. You see him lower his head, but his "intent" was not to light up the player. He was just trying to make a tackle.
Targeting was put in, so players like Gerry wouldn't come in on a play like that and just LAUNCH themselves towards to receiver. That's why the rule was put into place, to take out the "lighting up" per say of receivers and other players. He did nothing wrong in that play and sucks because he lost a half of football.
In the Iowa game, now that was targeting, because he used forcible contact to the head/neck area. That was not a smart play by him in that game.
I'd like to see this rule go more in the direction of the flagrant fouls in college hoops. You could define the rule for targeting in much the way it's defined today and then the refs could review for A) validity - that there was initial contact by or to the head/neck area and then B) review for intent/viciousness and, where appropriate, enforce just a personal foul and not have an ejection. If they want to call the facemask contact by rule as illegal, I could live with that, but I really think there needs to be a higher bar for ejection than we saw in this particular case. I don't think Gerry deserved to be tossed here.
I don't agree with your assessment that he lowered his head or that he initiated contact with his helmet on the UCLA tackle. You are taught to see what you hit with your head to the side. At the point of impact when Gerry's Left shoulder hits Perkins's right shoulder, Gerry is looking right at the chest/shoulder area. Just like you are taught. Perkins's head doesn't snap back at all and that tells you there is no force behind the helmet contact.
Did their helmets hit? Yes, but that was not the point of impact like Gerry's hit on T Smith. Perkins actually lowers his head when he sees Gerry coming or their helmets wouldn't have hit at all. The fact that Perkins begins to duck tells you that he is not defenseless, he is a runner.
If that tackle is targeting, there would be multiple ejections in every game on both sides of the ball.
Nope. Just hadn't seen the rule posted on here yet and thought I'd put in here.
I like that idea. Sort of like incidental facemask vs 15 yarder (though I think they did away with that distinction. Or running into kicker vs roughing.
That's fair. I have only seen that one view and it looks to me like his head is down and the heads touch first. I see plenty of room for different viewpoints on this case.
However we may differ in our interpretations of a slowed down replay after multiple views, in real time it certainly has the look of a hit that could be targeting. And the rule clearly instructs officials to penalize if there is any doubt. So the call was correct. The debate about the rule itself marches on.
Have you ever played football? The problem is when a player lowers his head and uses the crown of his helmet to hit an opponent. That is actually more dangerous to the player making the hit than the guy getting hit, fyi. Regardless, in this case, Gerry had his head up (which you are taught to do) and used his shoulder pads to drive the ball carrier back while wrapping up (which you are taught to do). If you want to eject a player because his face mask made contact with the player he was hitting then there will be a lot of players getting booted. At full speed, it happens all the time. I'm sorry, sir or ma'am or whoever you are, but you are flat out wrong on this one.
My question, to all of those who say he lowered his head to make the tackle, how in the world then did his face mask make the initial contact before he drove the player back with his shoulder pads? If his head had been lowered, which in the old days was called spearing, the crown of his helmet would have made the initial contact, not his face mask. Seriously, this was not a dirty or illegal hit.
And he ducked his head or else there wouldn't have been any helmet contact. Maybe targeting should have been called on the receiver.
I agree. It seems like all of these BS calls seem to always align with the Rule. It says the rule is flawed, and the application of it is probably even worse. I am friends with a ref, and he's been reprimanded for not calling targeting on multiple occasions on plays he thought were clean, hard nosed football on the field. Personally he dislikes the rule because it's not consistent, though is all for the spirit of the rule, as there are plenty of kids out there using the helmet as a weapon. The real problem is the helmet has been incorporated into the tackling technique, so it's largely acceptable, and now we're trying to draw lines around what is and isn't proper technique, even when there is no mal-intent. The word "targeting" implies malicious intent, and that's not really how the rule is enforced.The hit:
The rule:
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
I can't I agree with the rule, but what I didn't realize is that the hit doesn't have to be helmet to helmet. Also, the part "when in question, it is a foul" makes me feel that there could actually be more called. Hopefully something is done to redefine the rule. I'm OK with the penalty in most cases, but I don't agree with ejections at all.
i've never seen such anger on the iowa internet boards by a play that did not involve an Iowa player - or even in an iowa game.
nor did it involve an injury to anyone
why the hate?
nor did it involve an injury to anyone
why the hate?
Here's the solution to the targeting calls
1) Unless it is an obvious attempt to injure someone, don't call it
2) If it is called, review it and if at all possible pick up the flag
3) Let MEN play the game the way it was meant to be played
1) Unless it is an obvious attempt to injure someone, don't call it
2) If it is called, review it and if at all possible pick up the flag
3) Let MEN play the game the way it was meant to be played
ok - my problem with this thread is 3 fold
1 - that was not a perfect tackle - as 100% of everyone agrees it was not
2 - all the (koff - koff) superstar football players calling out others for never playing the game - I return the call - What is your experience in football? and don't say end, guard and tackle (sat on the end of the bench - guarded the water bucket, and tackled anyone the got near it). I mean what was your level of experience - and what position? pretty sure I know answers to all the above!!!
3 - as the last poster wrote - something about MEN (bad answer) - men not getting paid to get blasted in the head by some out of control lunatic is bad answer. If this was NFL - i don't care so much - but it is a KID being lined up for 12 yards by a human bullet. Yep he was allowed 1 step to turn and see the missile in the face and was lucky enough to step away by only an inch or so.
1 - that was not a perfect tackle - as 100% of everyone agrees it was not
2 - all the (koff - koff) superstar football players calling out others for never playing the game - I return the call - What is your experience in football? and don't say end, guard and tackle (sat on the end of the bench - guarded the water bucket, and tackled anyone the got near it). I mean what was your level of experience - and what position? pretty sure I know answers to all the above!!!
3 - as the last poster wrote - something about MEN (bad answer) - men not getting paid to get blasted in the head by some out of control lunatic is bad answer. If this was NFL - i don't care so much - but it is a KID being lined up for 12 yards by a human bullet. Yep he was allowed 1 step to turn and see the missile in the face and was lucky enough to step away by only an inch or so.
Last edited:
It was pretty darn close to a perfect form tackle. Gerry didn't quite bend his knees enough to get into the 'athletic position' before he made contact. However, Gerry is 4 inches taller than Perkins so he is starting at a disadvantage. If Gerry was 4 inches shorter than Perkins, we're not having this discussion.
Football experience: 2 time State Semi-Finalist (UNI Dome), 2 time 3A 1st Team All-District, 4th Team All-State, Single game school record 4 interceptions, as a Senior I started at Strong Side Corner, WR, Kick Off, Kick Return, Punt, Punt Return, and Field Goal.
I know it is nearly impossible to tackle someone without your head making contact with them in one way or another. I still can't believe that even after review that he was thrown out. It wasn't a malicious hit or even a particularly hard hit. I hope the Rose Bowl refs don't have such a quick hook or Lomax and Taylor are in trouble...
I have a buddy who is a div 2 official, but he saw this hit and was laughing while it was under review. He was going on about the importance of player safety, but there was no need for the flag on this hit. He said the player who caught the ball was no defenseless because he had time to brace himself before the hit. Also said there was no "launch" or "excessive force" to th head/neck area.
He kept on saying you read the players intent? Said if a player comes flying in and lights up a player, then you know he was trying to "target" or hurt the player. If the player comes in and wraps his arms up and tackles the player, then obviously he wasn't trying to light the player up. He also said there should of been at least 1-2 other officials who saw the hit and over ruled his call. He was even more shocked that the replay official didn't get it right.
Tough break for a kid. My buddy said he called 2 targeting calls this year and he got 1 right and 1 wrong. The one he got wrong the kid stayed down after the hit and he thought the kid hit high. Actually the kid did hit high, but he wrapped and drove the kid into the ground and when they hit the ground knocked the kid out. They thought it was on the initial hit, but it wasn't.
Tough call for officials to make, don't get me wrong. But with replay you have to be able to get that right.
Just so we're clear, all of you defending the call as correct and justifiably upheld honestly believe Gerry was targeting? Seriously, deep down, you feel his intent on that tackle was to go to the head? SMHExplain an ejection for THIS!!!
So when we both know an official, and they both have gotten them right and wrong, when they thought they were calling it right both times, it illustrates that the rule isn't where it needs to be yet. I agree though, replay needs to be able to correct it. The official calling it only has the benefit of one angle, and one shot in a split second to make the call. With that particular call, and the angle from the gif above (near the same angle that official had), I can't fault the official for making the call real time, but replay should have overturned it, let alone "Confirm...".
Because this affects the sport of football in general, not just Iowa. The game is going downhill with officiating like this.
Yup the replay officials have to over turn that call. I mean they have 8 officials now plus the replay officials who have the benefit of every camera angle. How can they not get some of these calls right. The Duke/Miami game comes to mind. Also there were some other calls this season that were head scratchers. I hope they can go back and look at some of these and make improvements.
Don't confuse the normal meaning of the word targeting with the football rule/penalty called 'targeting.'
I say he lowered his head because the video shows his head upright, then not upright. I call that lowering. But I am speaking English, not football, so I could be wrong on that
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-