Ok how do the targetting rules work?

[tequila 317]

Repeatedly you'd see a fist full of jersey. Clearly it is coached, and honestly the practice is obviously worth it given the results.
How often have you seen Dev and CJ get so little separation, all game. Even Eagles. 85 needs to stop playing like a little girl, but he's young. It took CJ a few years to learn he was a monster compared to the little guys covering him. Not sure what was up with Jake today, didn't see much. Related note, we needed to take their aggressiveness and throw high back shoulder to CJ and Eagles when it was 1v1 and man with over the top coverage. Higher balls means more reaching and more obvious holding..... Plus we'd probably catch it anyways. 
On CJ's injury, when he broke his route from vertical to over the middle, the DB had a fist full of jersey and held him to recover. 
They called one of these later in the game, but I saw I think 3 others with closed fist on jersey impacting the route at the break. 
 
It's a hard thing to catch unless it's obvious. Like holding on the line, you need to get some arm action or something to draw attention to the hold. 
 
 
As for targeting, yeah Roach led with the crown, not just above facemask but the very top of his helmet. Easy call. Sucks but as said above, see what you hit. Keeps your head up and improves accuracy. 
Hell last week, Dicker honestly should have been flagged for it. BJ Foster also on his stinger hit, simply for leading with top of the helmet. However I think the fact it's an ejection right now is causing refs to "consider" when calling it, not just enforcing a rule. They should change it to have a 15 yard penalty no ejection based on defenseless and based on helmet to helmet. Roach should be the 15 yard version of that. Lowered head but not helmet to helmet. Same for Dicker and BJ. 
Sam got rocked head to head, calling that late hit was bullshit, the timing was actually pretty great but that was helmet to helmet with on a defenseless player (act of throwing). You can't hit QB's there like that. So that was the wrong call also, by the book right now yeah that's an ejection imo. 
CJ play was more incidental because CJ did lower his head right before contact happened. Defender needs to do a better job of lining up contact there and keep head up more. I don't think that was ejection worthy, but if there was a 15 yard personal foul for helmet to helmet hit, yeah there you go. 
 
Of course we are all drunk and these ideas and comments may be retarded and/or not how the rules work.
 

But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

If Roach’s hit was targeting and ejectionable, the same situation applies to the CJ hit. The inconsistency in application is so damn frustrating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fondren & Main 6674]

All pussies should be shamed relentlessly.  Pussy ass Cedarian.  The gaping pussy!

[cam4mav 770]

1 hour ago, tequila said:

 

 

But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

If Roach’s hit was targeting and ejectionable, the same situation applies to the CJ hit. The inconsistency in application is so damn frustrating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Agreed, that's what I said lol. The rule is too vague and open to interpretation hence inconsistent application. Needs to be changed/redefined.

Roach should not have been ejected. Neither should the missed call on OU for CJ, and there needs to be a 15 yard penalty version. Ejection for more severe, like the hit on Sam (that being called a late hit versus the obvious helmet to helmet hit on defenseless QB..... literally the exact type of example of what's wrong with this rule and how random it seems to be in enforcement)

 

head perpendicular to ground (roach, BJ, our fucking KICKER), hit any part of defender, 15 yards 1st down [safety issue for the player hitting like that. BJ Foster is going to really hurt himself if he keeps lining up shots like last weeks hit vs WVU] Classic spear type contact.

helmet to helmet, during football move/runner, 15 yards 1st down. (CJ play, Earl Thomas hit last week on the qb that went out (steelers?, etc)

Defenseless Player helmet to helmet (Sam hit), 15 yards 1st down Ejection. Any helmet to helmet on receiver going for ball. (CJ already caught his and lowered his head to run, subtle diff I admit and it's very very close. Splitting hairs, but no doubt that deserved a penalty)

Spear helmet to helmet (perpendicular to ground), 15 yards 1st down Ejection. can be called on the runner too btw, this type of contact paralyzes people.

 

Something broken down in that fashion would be better I think, more consistently enforced. In theory.

 

Am I missing anything obvious?

Edited October 13, 2019 by cam4mav

[MissingInAction 24838]

Watching that complete and total warping of the rules of football to appease the big 12 agenda inspires me to post run on sentences of grief and horror!

[Jkwellborn 6656]

Roach didn’t have to lower his head. He could have just fallen on the wr and smushed him. The Lamb didn’t slide to make Roach target him. Jesus. Roach knew he was gone immediately after he did it.

[hookem48 4631]

Just now, Jkwellborn said:

Roach didn’t have to lower his head. He could have just fallen on the wr and smushed him. The Lamb didn’t slide to make Roach target him. Jesus. Roach knew he was gone immediately after he did it.

Roach was trying to put his hat on the ball and the receiver took a dive, shit happens I guess

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

20 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

The CJ could have gone either way but the one on Sam was targeting. Not even being reviewed was bullshit. 

Also, the Roach hit was technically targeting but if a WR is allowed to slide in the field of play. Football is officially dead. 

If you slide, you're down.  It's that simple.  Doesn't matter who slides, but you can't lead with your helmet.  Roach fucked up.  Didn't see the Sam call, was going back and forth to USC and GA.

[Nivek 16866]

If you slide, you're down.  It's that simple.  Doesn't matter who slides, but you can't lead with your helmet.  Roach fucked up.  Didn't see the Sam call, was going back and forth to USC and GA.

Back and forth between TX/OU and Georgia/Cocks?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Back and forth between TX/OU and Georgia/Cocks?

Yep

[dcar00 14036]

OU should have 2 guys out for the first half next week.  The big 12 is s sack of shit when it comes to player safety.   the 2 hits that actually could have caused concussions weren't even reviewed.

[BurntOrange&White 39690]

Thinking about this last night with the calls and how the ejection can drastically change a game if the player is significant I came up with the following.

Treat targeting rules similar to yellow cards in soccer. Say if a player gets called for targeting in a game the 15 yard penalty is enforced but the player isn’t ejected.

However the player carries the “yellow card” into the next half or the first half of the following game depending on when the penalty occurs.

If said player gets another targeting during the time he is under “yellow card” probation period he then is ejected for the remainder of that game or the first half of the next game.

[JBJ 3649]

The amount of bitching would drastically decrease if it were treated like an unsportsmanlike.  Reserve ejection for egregious or repeat offenders.

[WBT 20428]

The rule was made for the deterrent effect.  The people in charge don't see this as a problem at all.

[crimsonlonghorn 2306]

There was a hit on a run by Sunshine in the second half last night that looked real close to targeting to me. He lunged for a first down and some LSU dude - presumable a linebacker - took a running start and hit him helmet to helmet right on the hedge of the helmet opening and turned his head sideways. Didn't look pleasant. 

I guess the differentiating element was the lack of the "launch" component which is why it wasn't called, but it sure looked close. 

Laurence is pretty damn tough, I have to say. 

[Goredho 17352]

1 hour ago, Bevo VIII said:

Thinking about this last night with the calls and how the ejection can drastically change a game if the player is significant I came up with the following.

Treat targeting rules similar to yellow cards in soccer. Say if a player gets called for targeting in a game the 15 yard penalty is enforced but the player isn’t ejected.

However the player carries the “yellow card” into the next half or the first half of the following game depending on when the penalty occurs.

If said player gets another targeting during the time he is under “yellow card” probation period he then is ejected for the remainder of that game or the first half of the next game.

I think this makes more sense, but CTE is an existential threat to the game of football.  Aaron Hernandez, Junuior Seau, Dave Duerson, Jovan Belcher, Andre Waters, Shane Dronett, and many more.  All tragedies with headlines including the words "Football", "CTE", "Suicide" and/or "Murder".  Both the NFL and College Football are golden gooses.  Those that are its benefactors aren't fucking around with a threat that could kill them.

We're still in a transitional period where players have learned football as a collision sport where the knockout hit was encouraged and celebrated.  In another 5-7 years, there will be no players in college football that came up in that context.  I think it will be a non-issue once we get to that point.

EDIT:  Which isn't to say I don't miss the days of someone like Ronnie Lott enforcing a no fly zone downfield, but I can't really argue players should be sacrificing their brains and health past the age of 35 for my entertainment.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Goredho

[Napoleon 8615]

Clemson’s mutant QB dropped down from 6’6” to under 5’ to get hit in the helmet and have one of tOSU’s top defenders tossed and then immediately went to work on his replacement and the entire game changed. 

Without a controversial targeting call, Clemson wouldn’t have been in the championship to begin with. 

[TwiceHorn 31310]

Here are the actual rules.  Note that there are two definitions of targeting.  Because people don't seem to get that.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: •

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. • A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier. • A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return. • A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.. • A player on the ground. • A player obviously out of the play. • A player who receives a blind-side block. • A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.

[C-Man 27070]

The amount of bitching would drastically decrease if it were treated like an unsportsmanlike.  Reserve ejection for egregious or repeat offenders.

This. Hate seeing guys booted for course of play, split second plays. For instance, take the semifinal games — the OSU guy’s got should’ve been a penalty and “yellow card.” The OU guy’s play warranted an immediate ejection.

[TwiceHorn 31310]

The thing is, the rule is not intended to be one of sportsmanship or fairness.  It is designed, however poorly, to deter and eliminate entirely the conduct in question.  Thus, the draconian penalty that doesn't take into account intent or flagrantness.

[ImissWallyPryor 9045]

I’m looking forward to the day that they start calling targeting on ball carriers who lower their head and initiate contact. Offensive players are just as guilty as defensive players. 

[DFW Horn 6118]

The whole point of the Targeting rule is to discourage using your helmet as a battering ram. It's there to protect your head, not for spearing your opponent.

Yeah, Skalski deserved to get tossed.

Edited January 14, 2020 by DFW Horn
NCAA Rule already posted verbatim

[Billy Pilgrim 1913]

12 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

I’m looking forward to the day that they start calling targeting on ball carriers who lower their head and initiate contact. Offensive players are just as guilty as defensive players. 

The only time I’ve ever seen it called on offense was on Zeke Elliott... twice.

[JBJ 3649]

There at least need to be mitigating factors that would eliminate the ejection or nullify the penalty altogether.

The obvious one is if a ballcarrier ducks/trips/dives/slides into contact that isn't originally high, turning a belly-level tackle into a head-contact tackle without giving the defender time to react.  This should be an obvious change - so many of the "that's technically targeting according to the definition" moments are a direct result of this. 

Or if the tackler doesn't have a clear view of the ballcarrier prior to contact.  Dangerous but clearly incidental contact shouldn't warrant an ejection.

[BurntOrange&White 39690]

The whole point of the Targeting rule is to discourage using your helmet as a battering ram. It's there to protect your head, not for spearing your opponent.
Yeah, Skalski deserved to get tossed.

Yet ball carriers more often than not lower the crowns of their helmets but never get called.

[DFW Horn 6118]

30 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Yet ball carriers more often than not lower the crowns of their helmets but never get called.

Agree, it should be called both ways.

[aggie08 21436]

53 minutes ago, JBJ said:

There at least need to be mitigating factors that would eliminate the ejection or nullify the penalty altogether.

The obvious one is if a ballcarrier ducks/trips/dives/slides into contact that isn't originally high, turning a belly-level tackle into a head-contact tackle without giving the defender time to react.  This should be an obvious change - so many of the "that's technically targeting according to the definition" moments are a direct result of this. 

Or if the tackler doesn't have a clear view of the ballcarrier prior to contact.  Dangerous but clearly incidental contact shouldn't warrant an ejection.

Exactly. As pointed out above, even fucking soccer has yellow/red cards to separate incidental vs. malicious. And they don't get the benefit or replay and slow motion.

[bullet 1596]

4 hours ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

There was a hit on a run by Sunshine in the second half last night that looked real close to targeting to me. He lunged for a first down and some LSU dude - presumable a linebacker - took a running start and hit him helmet to helmet right on the hedge of the helmet opening and turned his head sideways. Didn't look pleasant. 

I guess the differentiating element was the lack of the "launch" component which is why it wasn't called, but it sure looked close. 

Laurence is pretty damn tough, I have to say. 

No.  It was a Pac 12 crew.  There were probably two targetings by LSU that didn't get called or even reviewed.  The one on Clemson didn't get called until the review.

[TXSG8R 3360]

4 minutes ago, bullet said:

No.  It was a Pac 12 crew.  There were probably two targetings by LSU that didn't get called or even reviewed.  The one on Clemson didn't get called until the review.

I saw a lot of bitching about the Delpit hit on Higgins.  I didn't think that was targeting, Delpit got his head across Higgins and his shoulder is what blasted his thigh.  That's how most people teach tackling now, head across the body.  He did lower his helmet, but I think that was more bracing than trying to lead with it.  

The hit on Rodgers is really hard for me to understand.  By the book, I think he was defenseless.  At the same time, what is a defender supposed to do when a player skies for the ball?  Let him catch it and hug him after he comes down with it?  It seems like if you called it by the rule, jump balls would either be a caught ball, or a penalty if you hit the guy in the air, which would make it impossible to defend.   

[BurntOrange&White 39690]

I saw a lot of bitching about the Delpit hit on Higgins.  I didn't think that was targeting, Delpit got his head across Higgins and his shoulder is what blasted his thigh.  That's how most people teach tackling now, head across the body.  He did lower his helmet, but I think that was more bracing than trying to lead with it.  
The hit on Rodgers is really hard for me to understand.  By the book, I think he was defenseless.  At the same time, what is a defender supposed to do when a player skies for the ball?  Let him catch it and hug him after he comes down with it?  It seems like if you called it by the rule, jump balls would either be a caught ball, or a penalty if you hit the guy in the air, which would make it impossible to defend.   

Delpit lead with the crown of his helmet. Which as pointed out above is clearly targeting

[immortal13 4059]

2 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

I’m looking forward to the day that they start calling targeting on ball carriers who lower their head and initiate contact. Offensive players are just as guilty as defensive players. 

Fuck that. Might as well become a soccer fan if that happens

[TXSG8R 3360]

1 minute ago, Bevo VIII said:

Delpit lead with the crown of his helmet. Which as pointed out above is clearly targeting

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet.  Leading with it isn't targeting.  Hitting with it is.  Thats what got the Clemson LB tossed, he drove the crown of his helmet into Jefferson.  Delpit's helmet touched the other leg, but the body of the hit was with the shoulder IMO.  

 

 

[WBT 20428]

10 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

 

The hit on Rodgers is really hard for me to understand.  By the book, I think he was defenseless.  At the same time, what is a defender supposed to do when a player skies for the ball?  Let him catch it and hug him after he comes down with it?  It seems like if you called it by the rule, jump balls would either be a caught ball, or a penalty if you hit the guy in the air, which would make it impossible to defend.   

Is that the one where he got hit in the back?  That's not targeting and shouldn't be.  Hitting someone in the back doesn't cause concussions.  You can hit a defenseless player anywhere below the shoulders, as long as you don't lead with the crown (ie spear).  Exact wording of the rule is upthread.

I'm not aiming this at any particular post in this thread but tons of people, including the announcers, still don't understand the rule.  Helmet to helmet on a ball carrier (ie not defenseless player), again as long as you aren't spearing with the crown, is not illegal.  To clarify, I think officials should start announcing it is as either (1) targeting the head or neck of a defenseless player or (2) spearing with the crown of the helmet.  Both could keep the same penalties as today but I think that verbiage, heard over and over, would help clear up the confusion.  Today both types of hits are just called targeting.

Edited January 14, 2020 by WBT

[TXSG8R 3360]

1 minute ago, WBT said:

Is that the one where he got hit in the back?  That's not targeting and shouldn't be.  Hitting someone in the back doesn't cause concussions.  You can hit a defenseless player anywhere below the shoulders, as long as you don't lead with the crown (ie spear).  Exact wording of the rule is upthread.

I'm not aiming this at any particular post in this thread but tons of people still don't understand the rule.  Helmet to helmet on a ball carrier (ie not defenseless player), again as long as you aren't spearing with the crown, is not illegal.  To clarify, I think officials should start announcing it is as either (1) targeting the head or neck of a defenseless player or (2) spearing with the crown of the helmet.  Both could keep the same penalties as today but I think that verbiage, heard over and over, would help clear up the confusion.  Today both types of hits are just called targeting.

I didn't think it was targeting, but lots of people thought it was an illegal hit to defenseless player.  I'm agreeing with you, I don't know how you make that a foul.  

[Newy25 7638]

6 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet.  Leading with it isn't targeting.  Hitting with it is.  Thats what got the Clemson LB tossed, he drove the crown of his helmet into Jefferson.  Delpit's helmet touched the other leg, but the body of the hit was with the shoulder IMO.  

 

 

That is targeting for sure. He launches himself and his helmet is the tip of the spear. Have we ever seen someone called for targeting that went low? 

[TXSG8R 3360]

1 minute ago, Newy25 said:

That is targeting for sure. He launches himself and his helmet is the tip of the spear. Have we ever seen someone called for targeting that went low? 

Where do you see a launch?  He broke down and drove his body across the runner.  I wish that twitter video extended, because IIRC, he wasnt favoring his left leg, he was favoring his right leg after the hit.  The leg that took the shot from Delpits shoulder.  

[Tex Pete 20184]

I hate the rule for various reasons, but I'll never feel sorry for any other team getting called for it. We have been called for more bullshit targeting than any other team I have watched. And it definitely needs to start being called on offensive players if they're going to keep the rule.

[Victorious1 140]

16 minutes ago, Newy25 said:

That is targeting for sure. He launches himself and his helmet is the tip of the spear. Have we ever seen someone called for targeting that went low? 

I see both feet on the ground when contact is made.  Only problem I see is he didn't wrap up.

[WBT 20428]

25 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet.  Leading with it isn't targeting.  Hitting with it is.  Thats what got the Clemson LB tossed, he drove the crown of his helmet into Jefferson.  Delpit's helmet touched the other leg, but the body of the hit was with the shoulder IMO.  

I agree with you on this one too.  Contact was primarily with the shoulder and some with the side of the head.  I don't see the crown of the helmet make contact at all.

[ImissWallyPryor 9045]

39 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Fuck that. Might as well become a soccer fan if that happens

I paused to do the air fingers quote when I was keying “looking forward” in my post. Does that help?

[immortal13 4059]

No

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, TXSG8R said:

I didn't think it was targeting, but lots of people thought it was an illegal hit to defenseless player.  I'm agreeing with you, I don't know how you make that a foul.  

The hit on Rodgers was late.  The ball had already sailed over Stevens head and Stevens had a clear view of the ball as well as the entire play.  You don't have to call it targeting.  Late hit.  Personal foul.  15 yard penalty.

[Fondren & Main 6674]

2 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet.  Leading with it isn't targeting.  Hitting with it is.  Thats what got the Clemson LB tossed, he drove the crown of his helmet into Jefferson.  Delpit's helmet touched the other leg, but the body of the hit was with the shoulder IMO.  

 

 

That looks fine to me...

[Hozz 1012]

Targeting is a terrible rule that never should have been implemented.  It is there to appease people that don't even watch the sport.  The fact that a player can be tossed because he broke down for a tackle ahead of a ball carrier lowering themselves or making any kind of football move that changes where the defender makes contact with them is absurd and incongruous with how the sport is actually played.  It is a very bad rule and blemishes the sport.

Also it blows my mind that anyone from the South could think CTE, or anything, is an existential threat to football.  Football is the most popular sport in the US and its only getting more popular.  NFL ratings are up.  CFB ratings are up.  In the South, in the Fall, its what we do on Friday Saturday and Sunday.  This isn't changing.  Science and technology will eventually solve for CTE, in the meantime we're still going to be playing and watching football.