Thoughts on targeting

[utexfan5]

I dont like a player getting ejected on his first offense. Thats more than a little heavy handed.

Texas had a player ejected early in the year, I saw replays...pathetic call.

Nate Gerry got ejected for a hit high, but when the offensive player ducks and puts his headgear where normally his chest or stomach would be, how are you going to penalize the defender, and toss him from the game?



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.

I feel like this rule ought to be modified. Thoughts?

 

[westx]

I saw that game last night and I didn't like the call, either.

 

[Belldozer1]

Bad call and the fact it stood after replay was surprising to me. Are flags reviewable and reversible? I know they review whether the player's actions were deemed enough to be ejected or not.

 

[txleapd]

Poor huskers.... They can't help but get screwed by the refs. First Texas; now Iowa. They just can't catch a break.













Honestly, though... F*** those guys. I hope they get every bad call against them. Bunch of whiny losers who run from a fight, only to keep getting bent over by the new kids. They're probably still crying about how everything is Texas' fault, and somehow the Horns paid off the refs in this game.

I'm laughing at their misfortune.

 

[clob94]

Does Target know it has a stupid rule named after it?

 

[4MNChampsHorn]

They are taking it to extremes. I believe the refs are calling targeting and ejecting players when there is no targeting. The refs need some accountability (especially the replay booth refs).

 

[txn_in_wa]

That was a good call, but wasn't there another one in that game that was a bad call?

I dont like a player getting ejected on his first offense. Thats more than a little heavy handed.

Texas had a player ejected early in the year, I saw replays...pathetic call.

Nate Gerry got ejected for a hit high, but when the offensive player ducks and puts his headgear where normally his chest or stomach would be, how are you going to penalize the defender, and toss him from the game?

View embedded media

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.

I feel like this rule ought to be modified. Thoughts?

Okay, I thought this was from last night, but it's not. I don't know that it was "targeting" per se, but last night, this play was not targeting. So I am confused why the video in this post was even posted. I could see targeting on that play, but not the one from last night.

 

[ryan_sublett]

I think the rule itself is a good rule. Don't think you need to be using the crown of your helmet to hit another player in the head. I don't think you need that to be an effective defender.
With that said however I think the rule needs tweaking. I think the ejection should come on the 2nd shot. Only because some can be close on weather it's targeting or not. So the first one is basically a warning and if it happens again then your gone.

 

[Schoonerman]

I agree wit the comment above, but that targeting/ejection call on the Nebraska DB in their bowl game was horrible and totally unjustified in my opinion. The NCAA needs to take a closer look at this rule, look at more film, train the refs to be more consistent. I'm all for protecting players, but this call was ridiculous.

 

[clob94]

He came in there almost standing erect. Had he have lowered his head and gotten better leverage: kill shot. One of those hits you don't wake up from for a few minutes.

 

[westx]

That was a good call, but wasn't there another one in that game that was a bad call?


Okay, I thought this was from last night, but it's not. I don't know that it was "targeting" per se, but last night, this play was not targeting. So I am confused why the video in this post was even posted. I could see targeting on that play, but not the one from last night.

View embedded media

I didn't even watch the 1st video posted because I knew exactly which play he was referring to. You are right, though. The video in the initial post was definitely "targeting". The bowl game targeting call was very questionable.

 

[Fizzwilly]

Terrible call. Hell it's football/

 

[oldschoolcat]

That's pathetic. Back in the day you wouldn't even get a sticker for that one.

Maybe a paw, but not a good one....

 

[bubba2023]

This is why I would be in favor of rule changes to benefit the D. Yeah sure you would be messing with the very fabric of the game, but nothing any different than what's already been done. The way the game is currently played, the rules favor the offense, and the refs are instructed to err on the side of safety, which typically means flagging the defender even if unsure.

 

[OldHornInPA]

My $0.02 worth.... I think that "targeting" should not be called when the offensive player lowers his pads and helmet just before contact. The defensive player is already trying to go low. When the ball carrier lowers his own upper body willingly, he has demonstrated that he is not a helpless victim of a hard hit. He is trying to dish out his own punishment.

 

[littleton tiger]

The targeting call should just be done away with.