Well... That's a first. 

 

 This brings my question about targeting: in the OSU game against Oregon Olave was hit late in game and they were looking at targeting....but it appeared to me the heads never hit and the hit was in the lower back area. Is that targeting? They over ruled it and played on(after a few minutes) which seemed correct to me.

5 hours ago, 9068 said:

 This brings my question about targeting: in the OSU game against Oregon Olave was hit late in game and they were looking at targeting....but it appeared to me the heads never hit and the hit was in the lower back area. Is that targeting? They over ruled it and played on(after a few minutes) which seemed correct to me.

Flip a coin….

It varies week to week. There is no consistency when it comes to targeting calls and it drives me nuts. 

I understand the reasoning for the rule and agree with it being part of the game. They’ve taken a rule that was intended to protect the players and turned it into something that makes the game worse.

5 hours ago, MBWC41 said:

Flip a coin….

It varies week to week. There is no consistency when it comes to targeting calls and it drives me nuts. 

I understand the reasoning for the rule and agree with it being part of the game. They’ve taken a rule that was intended to protect the players and turned it into something that makes the game worse.

As a long time official I think an illegal helmet contact penalty enforced from the end of the play would speed things along. After the second, ejection, and a one game suspension. Never happen. People are in love with replay.

46 minutes ago, 9068 said:

As a long time official I think an illegal helmet contact penalty enforced from the end of the play would speed things along. After the second, ejection, and a one game suspension. Never happen. People are in love with replay.

If you wait until the 2nd, then everyone would have one free shot to put their helmet on another players head.

One of these days the  players will finally learn how to play without leading with their helmet.

6 hours ago, MBWC41 said:

Flip a coin….

It varies week to week. There is no consistency when it comes to targeting calls and it drives me nuts. 

I understand the reasoning for the rule and agree with it being part of the game. They’ve taken a rule that was intended to protect the players and turned it into something that makes the game worse.

This.

Watching the Penn State/ Auburn game…

A kid got ejected for what was, by rule, targeting. If this is what we want the game to be, then go ahead and put flags on them. 

There was nothing malicious about that hit. I’d hate to be a defender in today’s game.

Look at the play instead of focusing only on two players helmets meeting.

Start ejecting running backs for lowering their heads and I’ll take the safety aspect of the rule more serious. 

I just watched that one too MBWC41 and another one in the Ole Miss/Tulane game.

Something has to change. 

8 minutes ago, MBWC41 said:

Start ejecting running backs for lowering their heads and I’ll take the safety aspect of the rule more serious. 

THANK YOU. 
 

I get that we need to get these things out of football, but what the heck are you to do when these guys lower their head to drive into you, or worse they do it a fraction of a second before you go to hit them and you get called foe targeting. Annoying. 

1 minute ago, DragonFire said:

THANK YOU. 
 

I get that we need to get these things out of football, but what the heck are you to do when these guys lower their head to drive into you, or worse they do it a fraction of a second before you go to hit them and you get called foe targeting. Annoying. 

I keep crying about it but it is semi-ruining college football for me. 

I understand, and agree with the spirit of the rule. 

I just don’t see how you play defense in this era of football. 

On 9/12/2021 at 7:10 PM, Jumper_Dad said:

If you wait until the 2nd, then everyone would have one free shot to put their helmet on another players head.

One of these days the  players will finally learn how to play without leading with their helmet.

It wouldn’t be a free shot, because it still would cost your team 15 yards. Plus you could make it to where a blatantly obvious intent to injure type hit still gets an automatic ejection. A lot of these ejections, yes it is targeting by how the rule was written, but wasn’t a hit that was intentional, or even sometimes not even their own fault because how the guy running or catching the ball ducked their head at the last minute. 

They could still keep it to where every hit by how the rule is written is still at least a 15 yard penalty. However, then have a separate ruling if that first penalty was worth an ejection. You could even still have it, that if a player does get a 15 yard targeting hit that wasn’t an ejection. It still counts as their first one and a second one for that game or even any point in the season gets you an automatic ejection still.
 

There is still ways to try to make the rule better, than how it is currently being used with every targeting penalty being an automatic ejection. 

I'd be open to something like basketball - define a flagrant foul 1 and flagrant foul 2.  Let the smart people determine what is the difference.  A flagrant foul 2 (whatever it would be) would result in an ejection.  A flagrant foul 1 would be 15 yards, but the player could stay in the game.  Two flagrant foul 1 calls by a player in the same game would also result in an ejection.  Similar to what @futurecoachis saying above.

On 9/18/2021 at 11:40 PM, futurecoach said:

It wouldn’t be a free shot, because it still would cost your team 15 yards. Plus you could make it to where a blatantly obvious intent to injure type hit still gets an automatic ejection. A lot of these ejections, yes it is targeting by how the rule was written, but wasn’t a hit that was intentional, or even sometimes not even their own fault because how the guy running or catching the ball ducked their head at the last minute. 

They could still keep it to where every hit by how the rule is written is still at least a 15 yard penalty. However, then have a separate ruling if that first penalty was worth an ejection. You could even still have it, that if a player does get a 15 yard targeting hit that wasn’t an ejection. It still counts as their first one and a second one for that game or even any point in the season gets you an automatic ejection still.
 

There is still ways to try to make the rule better, than how it is currently being used with every targeting penalty being an automatic ejection. 

Write a rule defining Blatantly Obvious.