Targeting?

[outhereincali]

The zebras said. no. What do you think?



This zebra was the same a**hole who gave OK a free pass when we played them for the title 3 years ago.

 

[GuaranteedFresh!]

Could go either way but imo, no targeting. He doesn't really lower his head much to lead with the crown. Helmet to helmet for sure, but when it's a questionable call I'd prefer the refs to not call the penalty. Disqualification affects too much for a grey area judgement.

 

[Oldmanastro]

No. It was a football play.

 

[Hoookem722]

That looked like a good clean hit to me. I really hate the targeting rules but I understand they are trying to protect guys from dangerous hits. I wish they would alter the rules and not eject players for accidental targeting.

 

[westx]

Not targeting to me. He didn’t lower the head and the major impact was to the shoulder pads.

On another note, osu got flagged for a DL coming down with hands up to block a pass and barely raked the QB. Was ridiculously flagged.

 

[2300 Nueces]

He led with the crown of his head and not with the face mask and no a wrap with the arms. It was a missile hit so yes that was targeting. I have seen much less called targeting. There is no uniformity in the rule and lots of ambiguity. I can't stand the current crop of officials. They are not consistent.

 

[JDCPAgolferHorn]

He led with the helmet not the shoulder pads. Agree that he didn’t necessarily lead with the crown but he came in helmet first. There was no wrap around. Targeting.
If he made an attempt to come in with arms to wrap around and there was also incidental helmet to helmet contact, no targeting.

 

[clob94]

No. It was a football play.

A really good football play at that-- and I can't stand Ohio state. Dude from Minnesota got ding donged. You see him go stiff, then limp-- he got knocked the fvck out.

 

[oldhorn2]

it looked to me like he led with exactly the crown of the helmet. I dont agree that a guy should be tossed out for 4 or 6 quarters, but it looked like direct intended helmet to helmet contact.

Nueces is right....no consistency. If it is your team it is a good hit. If it is theirteam it should be a target.

 

[EWNHorn]

My wife tries to take me Targeting but I'm like "hell no woman, I don't like to shop!" Yeh thats right.........I'm 45 and I'm a man!

 

[JDCPAgolferHorn]

My wife tries to take me Targeting but I'm like "hell no woman, I don't like to shop!" Yeh thats right.........I'm 45 and I'm a man!

Be careful there . . . Cali and Dan may call you racist, misogynist, and non-inclusive.

"I'm 45 and and I'm non-binary, they/them, and he/she."

 

[westx]

I re-watched on 0.25 playback, and upon further review, I change my initial call. Yes, targeting, imo.

 

[Longyac]

That is targeting. Occam would lead be to believe the refs were protecting tOSU.

 

[KChorn11]

I think by the letter of the law it was probably targeting, but I am glad they picked that one up. Not really really the point of the rule.

Minnesota got jobbed on several calls in the 2nd half though. Big 10 realized Ohio stare needed a little help.

 

[DHHorn]

Isn't targeting only if it is against a defenseless player or something like that? That player was running with the ball and not defenseless. If he was in the air or a QB sliding it would be targeting.

 

[JonBinge]

Great hit

 

[WRLHookem]

The targeting call has become so subjective, even with replay, that it’s impossible to determine what it really is. When they first instituted the rule it was to eliminate the pure viciousness of headhunters out there. When I played it was coached to me to injure or be injured. Killer thumper mentality. Actually I loved it. Got off to it. The game needed to eliminate that aspect. But now many of these hits are fractional seconds of one guy dipping his head at the wrong time. It ain’t targeting in that sense but the umps, league, organization are woke to the physical nature of the game causing many of these physical moments turning into game changing penalties. Needs to be reevaluated.

 

[outhereincali]

The targeting call has become so subjective, even with replay, that it’s impossible to determine what it really is. When they first instituted the rule it was to eliminate the pure viciousness of headhunters out there. When I played it was coached to me to injure or be injured. Killer thumper mentality. Actually I loved it. Got off to it. The game needed to eliminate that aspect. But now many of these hits are fractional seconds of one guy dipping his head at the wrong time. It ain’t targeting in that sense but the umps, league, organization are woke to the physical nature of the game causing many of these physical moments turning into game changing penalties. Needs to be reevaluated.

Will you be singing the same tune when somebody does that to one of our receivers?

 

[LonghornMM]

I think that it was a tough football hit. The targeting call could have gone either way. I think the no call was the right call.

 

[KChorn11]

I think that it was a tough football hit. The targeting call could have gone either way. I think the no call was the right call.

Yep. The problem with it was he came in with the crown of the Helmet, but because of the ejection side of it I’m glad they picked up the flag. I’d like to see the targeting penalty changed to just. 15 yard penalty with an ejection after 2. I don’t think one should be an automatic ejection

 

[WRLHookem]

Will you be singing the same tune when somebody does that to one of our receivers?

Yes football is a physical game and physical players deserve their due. Physical players and the intimidation they can bring to the game is in fact part of the game.