Targeting
- Thread starter pharmdfd
- Start date
I assume the officials didn't see the entire play and instead just wanted to go with a personal foul. I agree it looked like targeting on the replay, but I am guessing they weren't 100% sure. I don't know why the booth didn't buzz down and help them.
The call on Bosa was textbook targeting. I would think a player with his skill level would be a little smarter in that situation.
Put me down as one that feels like targeting is called a little too closely for my tastes. The Bosa play was classic targeting and downright dirty so dont feel bad about him being ejected. I do have a problem with safetys lowering the should and recievers lowering at the same time and a collision ensuing that kicks someone out of the game.
Yup agreed. It sucks because it seems like Safetys only option is to dive at the feet anymore. Anything waist level if the WR drops down, your screwed.
I feel the rule was put into place to be "safer" when tackling IE taking out the BIG HITS. Now it seems like anytime someone's helmets collide, someone is getting the boot.
Yeah I get the call takes away from tackling up high in a lot of cases but that was just a dirty hit on a defenseless receiver. Classic call in my book. Then a series or 2 later Jackson has a pick and is clearly out of bounds and an OL shoves him into the camera man and no call.
Yes, it's unfortunate when someone gets kicked out of a game because of inadvertent helmet-to-helmet contact. But, I really think the rule-makers are trying to save the game. Defensive players are trying to stop a ball carrier in his tracks with a hard hit, understandably so. Maybe they will have to learn to simply tackle them, even though the ball carrier might gain a couple more yards.
Counter intuitive, I know. But I really believe the future of the game is at stake.
Now, the Bosa hit was just a stupid thug play. He wasn't even trying to tackle him. Idiot.
Counter intuitive, I know. But I really believe the future of the game is at stake.
Now, the Bosa hit was just a stupid thug play. He wasn't even trying to tackle him. Idiot.
They are supposed to call it, review it and then then can retract the "targeting" portion.
Booth can call down and call targeting now. IF they feel it was missed on the field (i.e Iowa punter vs Michigan) last year.
I think the officials didn't see all of it, or maybe they thought the contact was high, but not to the "head". I thought at the time it was a good no-call. Now seeing replays of it, it could of gone either way. Didn't matter though, we still beat them.
They should be able to call 'high contact without intent' and even though a blow is delivered to the head and a 15 yard penalty assessed, the defender gets to stay in the game if its determined the ball carrier lowered into the defender's helmet. Forgive me if they already have that in the rule...or something similar.
If safeties tackled correctly then it wouldn’t matter. Never understood why they just launch themselves head first into someone putting themselves at greater risk for injury as well as the ball carrier. To me a great form tackle and driven to the ground looks much better than a throw yourself at them with no arms hit. In addition, they could and do just bounce off or whiff and the ball carrier keeps going. Wrap up and make a form tackle, it’s safer and works more often.
I don't disagree, but it's almost impossible to hold onto a ball that gets smoked by a helmet. I think thats what the head first guys are really going for.
Too much judgement involved there which leads to more controversy. I can intend to do something and make it look like an accident fairly easily, especially with practice. The moral is, learn to tackle properly and keep yourself under control. The players just have to adjust to the rule.
Agree with this. Officials cannot handle the responsibility to exercise judgement. It only lends itself to controversy
I did not see him hit Iowa anywhere near the neck. It appeared to me that it was the chest/numbers.
Yes his neck snapped back and nailed his head on the turf causing just as much damage as a traditional targeting call, but by rule it’s not targeting.
It was a cheap, dirty play and at the very least unsportsmanlike. I don’t think by rule it was targeting though.
If helmets collide, on field officials are probably calling it.
The onus is on the review official who can replay it in slow motion etc, to determine intent.
It should get over-turned by review official if Offensive player changes head level at last second. It should be called more in the defenseless player situations than normal RB-LB collision situations.
The onus is on the review official who can replay it in slow motion etc, to determine intent.
It should get over-turned by review official if Offensive player changes head level at last second. It should be called more in the defenseless player situations than normal RB-LB collision situations.
I think the definition implies intent is necessary. The rule says, "No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder". So if the player doesn't intentionally "target" the head or neck, I don't think it should be targeting. If it's not clear, it is targeting though.
I go back to two plays that illustrate the problem with targeting calls.
1) Jewel goes for a block, and the guy stumbles lowering his helmet right into his path. Clear helmet to helmet but the guy getting hit caused the helmet collision. Josey was already committed.
2) Against ISU a few years ago, the WR goes to the turn right in front of the safety. Our safety dives over him, but makes contact with a forearm to the helmet. Clearly the intent was not to hit him as DB was horizontal on contact and not down him.
Helmeting is a great rule when the defender is launching UP or into a player not changing elevation. However, when the "victim" is changing elevation and causing the hit, its a bad rule.
Still don't know why targeting wasn't called against MSU in endzone on Big10 Championship game.
1) Jewel goes for a block, and the guy stumbles lowering his helmet right into his path. Clear helmet to helmet but the guy getting hit caused the helmet collision. Josey was already committed.
2) Against ISU a few years ago, the WR goes to the turn right in front of the safety. Our safety dives over him, but makes contact with a forearm to the helmet. Clearly the intent was not to hit him as DB was horizontal on contact and not down him.
Helmeting is a great rule when the defender is launching UP or into a player not changing elevation. However, when the "victim" is changing elevation and causing the hit, its a bad rule.
Still don't know why targeting wasn't called against MSU in endzone on Big10 Championship game.
I think they just missed the call. That play resulted in a very fortunate MSU interception in the endzone off a players back. If they make the right call it would have been 1st & goal for Iowa at the 1 with a chance to go up 10. We're winning that game.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Eldridge, Spurlock Invited to Elite 75 Future Head Coach Power Lunch
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-