Jump to content

Targeting

wood

By wood
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

kopp0e

kopp0e 1135

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Extra Anejo said:

I think the real issue is whether "targeting" in any form should be a penalty. In the 21st century we are going to have targeting. So, we will perpetually have these calls where it could go either way. I just think there should be a lesser penalty than a player being disqualified.

It's going to get to the point where I think fans will want to make sure the rules for tackles are well defined, and when penalties are given, they are more clear cut...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
utee94

utee94 15733

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Zavala said:

They always say he has to "get his head around". So he can interfere as long as he's looking back for/at the ball.

 

Hey did any of those retarded off-ball targeting penalties get called in the No Fun League game last night? When they call one on an offensive line or running back I'll have a good chuckle, but they will continue to only call this penalty on defensive guys.

Yeah I know what they say, but when a receiver quits on his route and stops dead in his tracks there's not much a DB can do.  Momentum guarantees a collision. It's a stupidly called rule and needs to be reevaluated.  But it never will, because the rulemakers tend to favor the offense,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yeah I know what they say, but when a receiver quits on his route and stops dead in his tracks there's not much a DB can do.  Momentum guarantees a collision. It's a stupidly called rule and needs to be reevaluated.  But it never will, because the rulemakers tend to favor the offense,

They need a call like "peter" for a shanked punt to get away.

Like "sky" everyone starts yelling if it's a duck so the DBs can get their eyes up and look for a shitty high pass that is going to come up short.

edit: the rules favor the offense but the way the defense wins is through communication. Everyone is doing their job but reacting to a communication helps prevent penalties and keep them playing smart.

Edited by Zavala
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
utee94

utee94 15733

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Zavala said:

They need a call like "peter" for a shanked punt to get away.

Like "sky" everyone starts yelling if it's a duck so the DBs can get their eyes up and look for a shitty high pass that is going to come up short.

Actually a good idea, I like it!  Since there's pretty much no hope they're ever going to change the way they call it, all you can do is adjust the way you play it. 

 

Edit: Of course, then the offense just starts yelling "Sky" every time, and the DBs pull up, and the receivers run freely through the backfield.  Which honestly, wouldn't look any different than our defensive backfield currently does... 😉

Edited by utee94
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3646

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, utee94 said:

Yeah, I have no idea what a DB is supposed to do when a receiver quits on his route for an underthrown ball.  Is he supposed to hurl himself out of the way of the receiver to ensure the guy can make a catch?  This is a terrible implementation of the rules and needs to be reassessed.  

Who knows?  The actual written rules and how they have decided to call it have deviated over the past 2 decades.

The actual rules are that incidental contact is not allowed by an offensive player, but is allowed by a defensive player (contact from plays on the ball are allowed both ways).

But the enforcement over the years has flipped.  The offensive player can make incidental contact (like on a rub). The defensive player can't make incidental contact sometimes but sometimes he can.  Sometimes obvious plays on the ball get called.  Playing the receiver can get called even without illegal contact. It's the most frustrating penalty because it ends up being so subjective and changing ref to ref.

 

Fun fact: there is no pass interference on a fake punt where the pass could be confused for a legal kick (high and deep).  The only reason I bring that up is as an excuse to post this:

 

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16772

Posted
Posted

Still waiting to hear why Sam’s helmet getting ripped off by Maryland is not a penalty. Or how they missed the facemask on him earlier, or the dbs being all over the receiver before the ball gets there, or the ground causing fumble. What is possession and isnt. The changing of the rules over the past 15 years i think is designed to cover for the ineptitude or blatant cheating by the refs (ok state games).



Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
wood

wood 11090

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Another bull shit review on a non-targeting. Thankfully they got it right but they are almost gonna throw both safety's out the game for normal plays.

It's a halfback pass. He's being held, and he tries to hit the ball and hit the dudes face. Boo fuckin whoo

Yeah, being blocked in the back/held, and the review only allows for the targeting to be called.

I was wondering about something else, too. Can Targeting be called on an offensive player? If not, that's bullshit as well, because we know it happens. I'm guessing if they'd call this shit both ways, there would be less to even review, as offensive  players would be trying to avoid it as much as defensive players are.

Edited by wood
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gsoda3

gsoda3 3214

Posted
Posted
 

 

Lol the no fun league has gone insane on the protecting the QB.

Let's just put flags on the white QBs. DeSean Watson and Dak take bigger hits then this routinely and it goes uncalled.

 

Exact same thing happened to Russell Wilson today. He got the call. And Dak got one too

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

 

Exact same thing happened to Russell Wilson today. He got the call. And Dak got one too

 

You are right, that Dak call was absurd. In general I just see more hits allowed on guys like Desean that would've been penalized on other QBs. Especially hits below the knee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
Treefidy

Treefidy 1463

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

Same reason we didn't get that extra 15 tacked on, the refs are dumbasses. 

Man, no shit.  Aside from terrible spots all night, that was a complete clusterfuck. 

It was a personal foul, but I don't think targeting should have been upheld (personally).  Still a dumb penalty regardless.   The punch unsportsmanlike should have been an ejection.  Both penalties should have been assessed, not sure how or why it was "declined" on the GJ foul.  

B12 refs are almost the worst, PAC edges them by a nose after watching several PAC games this year. They are as bad as that conference

Link to comment
Share on other sites
taybo20

taybo20 2812

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Treefidy said:

Man, no shit.  Aside from terrible spots all night, that was a complete clusterfuck. 

It was a personal foul, but I don't think targeting should have been upheld (personally).  Still a dumb penalty regardless.   The punch unsportsmanlike should have been an ejection.  Both penalties should have been assessed, not sure how or why it was "declined" on the GJ foul.  

B12 refs are almost the worst, PAC edges them by a nose after watching several PAC games this year. They are as bad as that conference

Both were assessed, but so was the uga holding penalty. So, the ball started at the uga 46, holding took the ball back to the uga 36. Then the 2 15 yard penalties moved the ball to the Texas 34. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tex Pete

Tex Pete 20123

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, taybo20 said:

Both were assessed, but so was the uga holding penalty. So, the ball started at the uga 46, holding took the ball back to the uga 36. Then the 2 15 yard penalties moved the ball to the Texas 34. 

Yeah, they fucked it all up. They marked them all of after the official said they weren’t. But that wasn’t targeting. Personal foul, but not targeting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
taybo20

taybo20 2812

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

Yeah, they fucked it all up. They marked them all of after the official said they weren’t. But that wasn’t targeting. Personal foul, but not targeting. 

Well unfortunately for Cook he will be sitting out the 1st half against La tech

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GottaB

GottaB 588

Posted
Posted

I think there should be some gradation in the punishment on targeting.

Obvious disregard for human life: out 4 quarters

Poor form leading to a potential concussion: 15 minutes (hockey penalty box style)

Incidental but potentially harmful contact with the head despite use of all correct form: 10 yards.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 26936

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, GottaB said:

I think there should be some gradation in the punishment on targeting.

Obvious disregard for human life: out 4 quarters

Poor form leading to a potential concussion: 15 minutes (hockey penalty box style)

Incidental but potentially harmful contact with the head despite use of all correct form: 10 yards.

Gagree

Link to comment
Share on other sites
utee94

utee94 15733

Posted
Posted

 

 

Quote

would like to see the targeting penalty adjusted so there would be Targeting 1 (no malicious intent, 15-yard penalty)

If there's no intent, then how could it be called "targeting" in the first place? The very idea of "targeting" absolutely implies intent.  Otherwise it's simply unfortunate incidental contact which, although potentially dangerous, is really no different than a lineman getting his ankle rolled up on during play, or any number of other accidental things that happen in the midst of a violent game.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sushihorn

sushihorn 3233

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

Not that it ended up mattering, but found it not at all surprising that a Bama defender got away with one of the most clear cut (although I don't think intentional) instances of targeting I've seen all year.  Of course he did, because Bama. 

Same thing on Sam's scramble to set up 1st and goal during the last TD drive.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OU Sucks

OU Sucks 8743

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

The hit that LJH took on that short pass over the middle in the first half was much worse than the two we were called for late. I’ll try to find a link. Can we have some consistency, please?

Yup, pretty much ticked every box for targeting:

  • 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 his helmet.

Opposing coaches should be able to submit missed targeting calls after the game, if we're going full pussy.  Didn't USC's LB get away with a targeting against us, then another targeting in another game?

targeting.jpg

targeting2.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImissWallyPryor

ImissWallyPryor 9044

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

We agree again.

The fucking lack of consistent call of this play is actually worse than holding.

And it is ALWAYS the defender that gets called never the offense.

Yeah, Sam literally targeted that KSU DB in 2017, but he’s an offensive player, so no call. The DB had his head up like he was supposed to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bullet

bullet 1596

Posted
Posted
On 1/2/2019 at 2:00 AM, Treefidy said:

Man, no shit.  Aside from terrible spots all night, that was a complete clusterfuck. 

It was a personal foul, but I don't think targeting should have been upheld (personally).  Still a dumb penalty regardless.   The punch unsportsmanlike should have been an ejection.  Both penalties should have been assessed, not sure how or why it was "declined" on the GJ foul.  

B12 refs are almost the worst, PAC edges them by a nose after watching several PAC games this year. They are as bad as that conference

I watched it a couple nights ago.  It wasn't really even close to targeting.  The first one wasn't either.  And he didn't really punch, he pushed the guys facemask.  Stupid penalty.  The UGA player bumps him and starts mouthing off and he uses his hands instead of bumping back.  A couple stupid moves on that play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bullet

bullet 1596

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

Davis had a clean hit I thought.

It looked clean at the game and I watched it several times on tape.

He turned his helmet away as he got close and lead with his shoulder.  He hit shoulder to shoulder.  It didn't look like the helmets touched at all (although I couldn't be 100% sure they didn't do a tiny glance of his earpiece to the receivers crown-but there was no movement of the heads-and he certainly didn't lead with the crown).

The 2nd one was a clear stupid late hit, but if that's targeting, any tackle where they dive at a runner is targeting.  I didn't see anything other than him leaving his feet by diving.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...