NCAA Looking to Adjust Targeting Reviews

[Mavric]

As targeting ejections have doubled over three years, the NCAA Football Rules Committee is looking at changing the replay standards so a targeting ejection only occurs if the penalty is confirmed. Currently, if replay doesn't have enough evidence to confirm targeting but can't rule it's not targeting, the call on the field stands and the player gets ejected.

 

NCAA associate director Ty Halpin, the liaison for the rules committee, said ejecting a player is "a pretty expensive deal" if targeting isn't certain. Halpin said the "vast majority" of targeting flags thrown on the field should be confirmed, but there's a fairness issue to consider for players.

 

"We still want to the official to throw the flag there," Halpin said. "But if replay says there's a little bit of contact on the shoulder and it's more because the player adjusted and it wasn't a dangerous attempt by the player delivering the contact, then maybe that player deserves to stay in the game. It's a reasonable thing to go with."

 

CBS

[bugeater17]

 

As targeting ejections have doubled over three years, the NCAA Football Rules Committee is looking at changing the replay standards so a targeting ejection only occurs if the penalty is confirmed. Currently, if replay doesn't have enough evidence to confirm targeting but can't rule it's not targeting, the call on the field stands and the player gets ejected.

 

NCAA associate director Ty Halpin, the liaison for the rules committee, said ejecting a player is "a pretty expensive deal" if targeting isn't certain. Halpin said the "vast majority" of targeting flags thrown on the field should be confirmed, but there's a fairness issue to consider for players.

 

"We still want to the official to throw the flag there," Halpin said. "But if replay says there's a little bit of contact on the shoulder and it's more because the player adjusted and it wasn't a dangerous attempt by the player delivering the contact, then maybe that player deserves to stay in the game. It's a reasonable thing to go with."

 

CBS

 

 

Completely agree with this proposed change.

[Cdog923]

Ed Cunningham just got a raging megahuge clue.

[commando]

makes sense to me. i support

[4skers89]

 

As targeting ejections have doubled over three years, the NCAA Football Rules Committee is looking at changing the replay standards so a targeting ejection only occurs if the penalty is confirmed. Currently, if replay doesn't have enough evidence to confirm targeting but can't rule it's not targeting, the call on the field stands and the player gets ejected.

 

NCAA associate director Ty Halpin, the liaison for the rules committee, said ejecting a player is "a pretty expensive deal" if targeting isn't certain. Halpin said the "vast majority" of targeting flags thrown on the field should be confirmed, but there's a fairness issue to consider for players.

 

"We still want to the official to throw the flag there," Halpin said. "But if replay says there's a little bit of contact on the shoulder and it's more because the player adjusted and it wasn't a dangerous attempt by the player delivering the contact, then maybe that player deserves to stay in the game. It's a reasonable thing to go with."

 

CBS

 

The bolded would be significant if it is referring to the player getting tackled.

[Enhance]

If it leads to less ridiculous ejections, then I'm all for it. It's pretty unfortunate when an offensive player leans in or lowers their body and helps create inadvertent targeting, yet the defender still gets ejected.

[Apathy]

I wouldn't put much hope in the NCAA to get this right cause they'll screw up again when the 17' starts

 

They got together last year to better understand the rule and correct the issues of targeting calls that were controversial from the previous year to only blow it again during the 16' season.

[Landlord]

They haven't even figured out the adjustments they made to targeting reviews last season. I can't imagine this will fare any better.

[mnhusker]

I like the idea of taking into consideration what the offensive player is doing, it is frustrating when the tackle looks good but the ball carrier lowers down into the contact and the defense ends up with a targeting call. I guess we'll see what happens with this.

[Street Novelist]

Ed Cunningham won't like this one bit.

[Making Chimichangas]

If it leads to less ridiculous ejections, then I'm all for it. It's pretty unfortunate when an offensive player leans in or lowers their body and helps create inadvertent targeting, yet the defender still gets ejected.

 

It's the defender's fault all the time because he suffers from a condition where is head is on top of his shoulders.

 

To my way of thinking, targeting should not be considered any helmet to helmet contact--which is the way almost all officials now call the foul.

 

What I mean is, a running back or receiver is running with the ball, and as you point out they dip their hips to get lower in preparation for contact. The defender also has to drop his hips to wrap up and make a tackle--and sometimes, helmets hit. That's just football. But too many defenders get called for targeting.

 

Now if a defender clearly leads with crown or top of his helmet, and/or launches into the air, and then leads with the crown, then yeah, THAT's targeting.

 

But this bull stuff where defenders are being ejected for incidental helmet to helmet contact has got to stop.

[CheeseHusker]

Too late for Gerry, lol.

[Enhance]

 

If it leads to less ridiculous ejections, then I'm all for it. It's pretty unfortunate when an offensive player leans in or lowers their body and helps create inadvertent targeting, yet the defender still gets ejected.

 

It's the defender's fault all the time because he suffers from a condition where is head is on top of his shoulders.

 

To my way of thinking, targeting should not be considered any helmet to helmet contact--which is the way almost all officials now call the foul.

 

What I mean is, a running back or receiver is running with the ball, and as you point out they dip their hips to get lower in preparation for contact. The defender also has to drop his hips to wrap up and make a tackle--and sometimes, helmets hit. That's just football. But too many defenders get called for targeting.

 

Now if a defender clearly leads with crown or top of his helmet, and/or launches into the air, and then leads with the crown, then yeah, THAT's targeting.

 

But this bull stuff where defenders are being ejected for incidental helmet to helmet contact has got to stop.

A lot of it is more than just helmet-to-helmet contact, though. The rule also applies to the use of the forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder towards a defenseless player, and that causes just as much strife.

 

I do agree with the point you're making, however. Defenders are far too often put in a position where they can do no right, and it goes down to the very core of the game. "Offense" suggests attacking strategy whereas defense involves reactionary strategy, and the rules put 100% of the blame on the defensive players who are trying to react to the offense. It's not fair, and what's even more egregious is that we've seen reviews where just about everybody watching knew the defender didn't intend to initiate contact to the head, but they couldn't avoid it and were ejected anyways.

[tmfr15]

I seem to recall a sack of Blaine Gabbert, maybe by Ciante during which Blaine lowered his head out of reflex to the hit coming in and that caused a helmet to helmet situation. I can't recall if anything was called on that or not, but either way, it should not have been. If an offensive player sees a hit coming, the natural reaction is probably to lower your head just a bit. The defender can't be expected to factor that into how he delivers his hit and tackle attempt.

[Landlord]

I seem to recall a sack of Blaine Gabbert, maybe by Ciante during which Blaine lowered his head out of reflex to the hit coming in and that caused a helmet to helmet situation. I can't recall if anything was called on that or not, but either way, it should not have been. If an offensive player sees a hit coming, the natural reaction is probably to lower your head just a bit. The defender can't be expected to factor that into how he delivers his hit and tackle attempt.

 

 

 

Helmet-to-helmet isn't illegal. Spearing is illegal, and forceable contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player (by any part of the body) is illegal.