BJ Foster's Targetting Call

[Mileslong 4,710]

Y’all argue and get emotional about the stupidest shit.

I’m not fucking emotional about it at all. What are you even talking about?

[wood 11,105]

11 hours ago, CfRhTxStBobcats said:

Maybe change name of thread to simply targeting.  As much as they're calling it we could have 20 threads by the end of the season.

I did, after Maryland...with exactly that in mind. I even done spelt it right.

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by wood

[ImissWallyPryor 9,045]

The thing I disliked the most is that the "expert" seemed to downplay the hit on Sam, saying that the defender didn't lower his head (he did) and that the top of the helmet didn't connect with Sam's jawline (it did).  But, when the Texas player does it on a ball carrier running right at him (as opposed to the QB throwing a pass), it's "textbook" targeting.  Fuck that California rationalizing expert.  His attitude regarding the hit on Sam was that it had to be called targeting, but only because that's the way the rule was written.

Edited September 17, 2018 by ImissWallyPryor

[Slacks 6,791]

Targeting and horsecollar are two bullshit penalties imo. But both targeting calls during the game were def. targeting, according to the bullshit rule

Exactly all this... and I completely understand the horse collar rule... if you don't want helmet to helmet, change or remove the helmet.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

7 hours ago, triplelonghorn said:

Straight out of the NCAA definition for "targeting":

 

Targeting was the right call based on the literal words in the NCAA's rulebook. Note the key portion "when in question, it is a foul"

There are two targeting rules 9-1-3, which requires use of the crown of the helmet to the head of another player, plus "an indication of targeting," which includes "launch" but doesn't require it.  And 9-1-4, which you are quoting.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

4 minutes ago, Snacks said:

12 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Targeting and horsecollar are two bullshit penalties imo. But both targeting calls during the game were def. targeting, according to the bullshit rule

Exactly all this... and I completely understand the horse collar rule... if you don't want helmet to helmet, change or remove the helmet.

So skull to skull is cool?

 

I don't love the rules, but as mentioned, it's to protect players, and, probably more importantly, to try to change the way the game is played by making the penalty fairly outrageous and not based on any intent.  It implicitly says don't do this, even by accident, because you're gonna get fucked if you do.

Edited September 17, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13,125]

9 hours ago, ousux said:

When you have a bunch of defensive players playing tentatively because they don't want to get tossed the game suffers as a whole.

If Foster wraps at the waist or lower and gets the tackle, how does the game suffer? It's high risk, low/zero reward. There's just nothing good for anyone that comes from the type of hit that Foster put on there. It risks Foster's brain, it risks the runner's brain, and accomplishes nothing that a good eyes-to-the-thighs tackle would not have.

His arms are tucked in, for Christ's sake. If he mistimes that the runner is just spinning or bouncing away and getting more yards.

[cochamps 1,875]

7 hours ago, triplelonghorn said:

Straight out of the NCAA definition for "targeting":

 

Targeting was the right call based on the literal words in the NCAA's rulebook. Note the key portion "when in question, it is a foul"

No jack wagon.  You need to bold the defenseless part.

[ousux 5,586]

If Foster wraps at the waist or lower and gets the tackle, how does the game suffer? It's high risk, low/zero reward. There's just nothing good for anyone that comes from the type of hit that Foster put on there. It risks Foster's brain, it risks the runner's brain, and accomplishes nothing that a good eyes-to-the-thighs tackle would not have.

His arms are tucked in, for Christ's sake. If he mistimes that the runner is just spinning or bouncing away and getting more yards.

The "good" that comes from it is this..

It establishes dominance and makes the receivers tentative about catching the ball over the middle in front of the safeties. Or at least that's the way it used to be, (I played free safety in HS, as well as receiver) and that's what I mean about changing the game in fundamental ways that hurts the product...yet I acknowledge it's necessary.

 

I still don't agree with the automatic ejection though, 15 yards and automatic first down (as well as the threat of being tossed if you do it again) are more than enough to discourage those types of hits.

 

[cochamps 1,875]

7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

 

I think they thought the DB led with his crown, in which case it's irrelevant whether the WR  had become defensible. 

Did not lead with the crown, that’s wrong.

[bad_teammate 13,125]

2 minutes ago, ousux said:

It establishes dominance and makes the receivers tentative about catching the ball over the middle in front of the safeties.

I realize that's the logic, but does it actually do either of those things? The receiver immediately recovered the ball that he lost and showed no sign of being deeply intimidated.

[CurlyDumps 4,439]

At first I thought BJ led with his shoulder, but after a couple replays it looked like he led with his helmet.

[Fondren & Main 6,658]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I realize that's the logic, but does it actually do either of those things? The receiver immediately recovered the ball that he lost and showed no sign of being deeply intimidated.

Worked well at Tech in 2004 I think.

[Zavala 1,384]

Yeah they will be taking their eyes off the ball on crossing routes looking for the head hunters. If they outlaw normal hits just fuck their ACL up from now on. Dude was running strait up and not looking in the direction he was running lol.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I realize that's the logic, but does it actually do either of those things? The receiver immediately recovered the ball that he lost and showed no sign of being deeply intimidated.

Alligator arms come from this fear. I have caused them and had them. 

 

[notre dame joe 172]

12 hours ago, WBT said:

Edit - I was mistaken.  It is now illegal to lead with the crown even when the player is not defenseless (I think this was added a year or two after the original targeting rule?).  I do not think that applied in this case but they may have been the interpretation.

 

7 hours ago, Mileslong said:

It was targeting by rule but he didn’t launch himself as you said. The USC guy launched himself. Foster hit QB with the side of his helmet, not really the crown but close enough, Foster never left his feet, that’s not launching

They clarified the crown starts just above the facemask.  I don't know there is an imaginary line going all the way around the helmet, but there probably is. 

[BigHorn'13 3,352]

9 hours ago, CurlyDumps said:

At first I thought BJ led with his shoulder, but after a couple replays it looked like he led with his helmet.

All the angles shown on the clip from the previous page make it hard to tell. I like the angle they give here at the 4:05 mark

Again, to me he shades his upper body slightly to the right to use his left shoulder and square up roma's chest. I can even see space between his helmet and the other guy. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by BigHorn'13

[Gene Parmesan 3,992]

It was targeting.  Hate the rule all you want, but the refs application was correct.  Just so you are prepared basically any kill shot is going to get called.  If you are asking yourself what's a defensive player to do, they need to wrap up and form tackle and hope the runner doesn't duck or something.

[Your Mom 4,789]

22 hours ago, Machinator said:

You can't embed mobile Twitter links.

 

Anyone who thinks he led with the shoulder should run that video to the :12 mark and pause/unpause it one click at a time for slow motion.  It's very clear their heads collided before BJ's shoulder hit hit chest.  The argument about how else to make that tackle still stands, sometimes your  head just can't be put anywhere else.  Sometimes they're going to collide.  But if he makes that same hit "face up" instead of dropping his helmet at the last second he's playing the first half of TCU.  It's not about whether or not your helmet hit them, it's about what part of your helmet hit him.

[Huckleberry 32,685]

Jaylon Smith showed exactly how to make this hit without targeting last night.

 

[kevwun 15,595]

If you want football to still exist in the decades to come, get over bitching about targeting penalties.  Beyond that, it's basic human decency because repeated head trauma is not something you should be ok with just because you feel like football isn't manly enough unless dudes are getting knocked out cold.

Edited September 17, 2018 by kevwun

[BigHorn'13 3,352]

36 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Jaylon Smith showed exactly how to make this hit without targeting last night.

 

Nice hit but at this point I'd rather see BJ just wrap up next time because you never know when the flag will be thrown. Especially if it's a QB like in that play. 

55 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

It was targeting.  Hate the rule all you want, but the refs application was correct.  Just so you are prepared basically any kill shot is going to get called.  If you are asking yourself what's a defensive player to do, they need to wrap up and form tackle and hope the runner doesn't duck or something.

This is the conclusion I've arrived at. And to be clear, I'm not all "buncha pussies around here" when it comes to the safety of the game. Head to head hits are bad for the players. Just wish there was a better way to distinguish leading with the head vs. the shoulder, and a better system in place for instances like this. Something like first of two personal foul (unnecessary roughness) with a 15 yard penalty. Second, you get thrown out and 15 yards. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by BigHorn'13

[dcar00 14,023]

51 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

Anyone who thinks he led with the shoulder should run that video to the :12 mark and pause/unpause it one click at a time for slow motion.  It's very clear their heads collided before BJ's shoulder hit hit chest.  The argument about how else to make that tackle still stands, sometimes your  head just can't be put anywhere else.  Sometimes they're going to collide.  But if he makes that same hit "face up" instead of dropping his helmet at the last second he's playing the first half of TCU.  It's not about whether or not your helmet hit them, it's about what part of your helmet hit him.

3 things

1. if you lower your shoulder into a player your head will come down and you will get called for targeting if your helmet hits the other players helmet

2. head "across the bow" at any point from top of the numbers above will likely result in targeting. you must target the middle of the numbers or below. defensive players will be vulnerable to neck stingers/head trauma much more by targeting low but this is nature of the game now.  shoulder injuries will be much more common.

3. you can not "drive up" on a form tackle anymore or likelyhood is you will get targeting.  they want rugby style tackles.

 

 

[Hozz 1,012]

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

If you want football to still exist in the decades to come, get over bitching about targeting penalties.  Beyond that, it's basic human decency because repeated head trauma is not something you should be ok with just because you feel like football isn't manly enough unless dudes are getting knocked out cold.

Football is not going anywhere.  Boxing is a thing.  MMA is a thing.  How would your argument apply to those sports?  We should ban the closed fist and only allow slaps?  But not to the head because of basic human decency?

[kevwun 15,595]

Boxing proves my point quite nicely.  It has no where near the following it once did.  It exists only as a shell of it's former self.   Participation in football will shrink if it's not made safer.  Parents know about the effects of lrepeated brain trauma now.

Edited September 17, 2018 by kevwun

[wood 11,105]

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Boxing proves my point quite nicely.  It has no where near the following it once did. 

Because of head trauma, or because of MMA, which is just as brutal, or maybe moreso?

[kevwun 15,595]

MMA is actually safer than boxing.  The fights are shorter and there's fewer blows to the head.  Those big padded gloves just mean a boxer can take more blows to the head before the fight is over.

Edited September 17, 2018 by kevwun

[wood 11,105]

1 minute ago, kevwun said:

MMA is actually safer than boxing.  The fights are shorter and there's fewer blows to the head.

Maybe so, but your assumption seems to be that boxing has a smaller following now because of head trauma. I really doubt that's why.

[kevwun 15,595]

Everyone knows about the effects of boxing.  Would you want your child to end up punch drunk by the time he's 40?  When fewer people participate in a sport, it's popularity decreases.  There are other reasons for boxing's demise, but the health risks played a part. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by kevwun

[HuskiesHorns 28]

I can't remember what comedian said sports should allow steroids/drugs and be as violent as possible because thats why we watch.

Foster's hit made me smile.

[wood 11,105]

6 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Everyone knows about the effects of boxing.  Would you want your child to end up punch drunk by the time he's 40?  When fewer people participate in a sport, it's popularity decreases.  There are other reasons for boxing's demise, but the health risks played a part. 

I don't want my kid to be a boxer, but I really don't think most boxers start when they're kids. I do see MMA classes for kids, which I think is pretty fucked up, but whatever. I can buy that there could be a link between  MMA's rise and boxing's decline, but I don't really think it has much to do with head trauma awareness. If anything, MMA fans strike me as a more bloodthirsty lot than boxing fans, which is something. As for MMA being 'safer' than boxing, it might be, but I doubt it's much safer in general or in regard to head trauma. I also doubt there's much data on that just yet.

[Huckleberry 32,685]

I don't think there's any way that MMA is not safer for head trauma than boxing. In boxing you can continue fighting as long as you appear to recover from your concussion in 10-15 seconds or so.

[Gene Parmesan 3,992]

Boxing's heyday was a long time ago.  It was a shell of itself long before CTE was even a term.  A lot of factors went into it's downfall, but I would guess one of them was society just evolving beyond such a sport.   

[bad_teammate 13,125]

30 minutes ago, HuskiesHorns said:

I can't remember what comedian said sports should allow steroids/drugs and be as violent as possible because thats why we watch.

Foster's hit made me smile.

Why do people say "we" when they mean "I"?

Some of us like the sport even if it doesn't involve teenagers purposefully giving each other brain damage.

[C-Man 26,992]

12 hours ago, ousux said:

I still don't agree with the automatic ejection though, 15 yards and automatic first down (as well as the threat of being tossed if you do it again) are more than enough to discourage those types of hits.

 

This

[Jkwellborn 6,649]

Boxing's heyday was a long time ago.  It was a shell of itself long before CTE was even a term.  A lot of factors went into it's downfall, but I would guess one of them was society just evolving beyond such a sport.   

The fact that boxing is practically rigged or seems to be most likely has a lot to do with people not giving a damn too. Or maybe television had something to do with it.

[Alien Octopus 499]

There is no rule that requires a player to wrap up. Unless he is going to get trucked , and he slidee down and around wrapping up is not even possible in this instance, and does not immediately stop forward progress nor dislodges the ball. Had Foster been lower it would have been a celebrated play by all., and not because of wrapping up. I don’t remember anyone giving Huff any shit  for dislodging balls against USC by drilling the shit out of players, QBs Wrs or RBs. 

[Eskimohorn 5,610]

Boxing's heyday was a long time ago.  It was a shell of itself long before CTE was even a term.  A lot of factors went into it's downfall, but I would guess one of them was society just evolving beyond such a sport.   

Boxing’s decline is very much linked to fighters ducking fighters and pay-per-view.

[huge 3,788]

Leads with the crown. Intent was to blow the receiver up. Mission accomplished.

Not smart but certainly exciting.

[Bevo 13,493]

10 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

The fact that boxing is practically rigged or seems to be most likely has a lot to do with people not giving a damn too. Or maybe television had something to do with it.

Obviously, Don King and the rigging played a role. However, I personally stopped watching when everything went to pay per view (the 80s?). In Austin, hispanics typically will get a large group together and split the costs and watch over at someone's house. I don't have that luxury and there is no way in hell I'm gonna fork out the money for a fight which may or may not be worth the money. 

[BigHorn'13 3,352]

2 hours ago, huge said:

Leads with the crown. Intent was to blow the receiver up. Mission accomplished.

Not smart but certainly exciting.

Why? Because his head sticks out past his shoulders? That's kinda... anatomy, no? Just don't think there's a good way to discern head vs. shoulder and thus, wrapping up is your best bet and hope the runner doesn't try to get low too. 

[huge 3,788]

Why what?  Why did his helmet hit the receivers facemask first?

[ousux 5,586]

Why what?  Why did his helmet hit the receivers facemask first?

Nope, hit the armored and padded part of the shoulder pads, then incidental contact with the top of his helmet to the receivers facemask. Those types of hits look worse than they really are, (like when Sams helmet popped off) the receiver just bobbled the ball because it was so sudden..

[Jkwellborn 6,649]

The guys mouthpiece went about 5 yards away. He got lit up.

[kevwun 15,595]

and he launched himself at him.  That is gonna get flagged every time.

[Bevo 13,493]

I didn't hate the call, but I think it was stupid that they were reviewing ball placement and then made the call from the booth when it wasn't made on the field.

[JBJ 3,647]

 

On 9/17/2018 at 8:57 AM, Your Mom said:

But if he makes that same hit "face up" instead of dropping his helmet at the last second he's playing the first half of TCU.  It's not about whether or not your helmet hit them, it's about what part of your helmet hit him.

He was face up, he hit on or right below the impact tab of the helmet.  I'm not going to say the call was wrong, but it is questionable.

Edited September 18, 2018 by JBJ

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

I don't buy that we as a society have evolved beyond boxing -- MMA has filled the void. Don King's greed destroyed boxing. I can remember when some heavyweight championship bouts were on network TV at the tail end of Ali's day, and then with the rise of satellite TV, they moved to closed-circuit (I saw Tyson-Spinks on a big screen in an arena), and then once everyone got cable, to PPV. More and more people lost interest with each of those steps. I don't think either of my kids have ever seen a boxing match, but I could probably give you the names of 20 boxers -- historical or current -- when I was 12. 

[JBJ 3,647]

On boxing, the last undisputed heavyweight champions were Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis.  Riddick never even attempted to defend the title and was stripped for refusing to fight.  Lewis lost the title because the courts decided he was scheduled to fight contenders in the wrong order.

That's a large part of why boxing died.

Edited September 18, 2018 by JBJ

[texifornia 56,434]

Carlos from Brownsville has some THOUGHTS y'all