Nebraska's Nate Gerry Penalty Proves It's Time to Tackle the Lawlessness of Targeting Calls

[FrankWheeler]

NUance nails it. Had he let the player gain a yard, then chucked him Suh style out of bounds, he would have been fine.

Even though he made a fundamentally sound tackle, it was penalized because it was executed in a big way. The official got a second look and refused to over turn it because doing so might result in them actually gettinf in trouble. Upholding it was safer for them.

But, then again, that is the exact reason for the rule: to limit the explosive hits.

It is hardly a defenders fault if the player he is SUPPOSED to tackle doesn't see him coming or doesn't properly evade. If the rule is solely in place to reduce big hits, it needs to be removed.A hit is a hit, and if we start flagging routine tackles because Official A thought it looked a bit hard, that is when football starts to die.

To say a defender has no fault in a collision doesn't make sense. It takes 2 to tango.

A hit hasn't been a hit for the past 3 years. The NCAA is going to keep revising this rule but they aren't going to get rid of it. Player safety should be a concern and people are going to have to get used to football being a slightly different game.

You are twisting what I said. I said it is not the defenders fault if the guy he is tackling isn't prepared for it. Every player whose job it is to make tackles knows that if they do it in a certain way they could be flagged and or ejected.

Then football has been dying for 3 years and the targeting rule is speeding it up. Moving forward targeting calls need to be reviewed by someone who isn't an official not wanting to admit fault. If we are going to start flagging hits that looked "harder than they needed to be" we may as well just do flag football.

But the rule says it is the defenders fault. The rule says they can't hit a defenseless player. Personally, I would rather them still play tackle football under these rules instead of flag football, it is still more entertaining to me.

 

[FrankWheeler]

Why is it either we need big hits or no hits at all?

 

[Bowfin]

he certainly made helmet to helmet contact with the receiver in both videos.

Every offensive and defensive lineman has scuff or paint marks on his helmet after a dozen plays in a normal game. According to your (their) logic, each scuff mark should result in an ejection, because those marks come from helmet to helmet contact.

 

[Enhance]

If the parameters for holding are so obvious why isn't it called consistently?

The parameters for targeting are spelled out in the rule book, they aren't vague. And if you go by the rulebook below, the UCLA call isn't completely crazy.

Article 3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Article 4: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

Defenseless Player: A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless.

People need to get used to a different type of football.

Holding is called more than targeting, so what you're trying to argue doesn't really make sense. It is also a penalty called against non-ball carriers whereas targeting is exclusively called against players either with the ball, receivers or quarterbacks. Furthermore, as Kernal mentioned, holding is not reviewable and can not result in an ejection. I think it's best to stop trying to associate the two.

Now, watching that replay, I still do not personally see how what Gerry did falls into the category of targeting. From the time the defender caught the ball Gerry took, at best, two full steps. He had no other logistically possible way to make that tackle, and even attempted to turn his ahead away from the collision.

 

[FrankWheeler]

I agree frequency does not equal subjectivity. I don't know how that enters into the discussion.

 

[lo country]

Baylor vs UNC had a great example of it working correctly. Baylor DB blows up UNC receiver. The DB hits the receiver in the back, receivers head whips and ref throws flag. Goes to the booth. Announcers break it down. DB, does not launch himself, but makes solid contact, dips his head to the side, breaks down and shoulder pads hit in the "horse collar area". The receivers head is whipped by this action. Looked much more violent than Gerry's. Replay booth overturned call..

 

[Redux]

NUance nails it. Had he let the player gain a yard, then chucked him Suh style out of bounds, he would have been fine.

Even though he made a fundamentally sound tackle, it was penalized because it was executed in a big way. The official got a second look and refused to over turn it because doing so might result in them actually gettinf in trouble. Upholding it was safer for them.

But, then again, that is the exact reason for the rule: to limit the explosive hits.

It is hardly a defenders fault if the player he is SUPPOSED to tackle doesn't see him coming or doesn't properly evade. If the rule is solely in place to reduce big hits, it needs to be removed.A hit is a hit, and if we start flagging routine tackles because Official A thought it looked a bit hard, that is when football starts to die.

To say a defender has no fault in a collision doesn't make sense. It takes 2 to tango.

A hit hasn't been a hit for the past 3 years. The NCAA is going to keep revising this rule but they aren't going to get rid of it. Player safety should be a concern and people are going to have to get used to football being a slightly different game.

You are twisting what I said. I said it is not the defenders fault if the guy he is tackling isn't prepared for it. Every player whose job it is to make tackles knows that if they do it in a certain way they could be flagged and or ejected.Then football has been dying for 3 years and the targeting rule is speeding it up. Moving forward targeting calls need to be reviewed by someone who isn't an official not wanting to admit fault. If we are going to start flagging hits that looked "harder than they needed to be" we may as well just do flag football.

But the rule says it is the defenders fault. The rule says they can't hit a defenseless player. Personally, I would rather them still play tackle football under these rules instead of flag football, it is still more entertaining to me.

The rule is horse sh#t. A player carrying the damn ball is not a defnseless player! His job is protecting himself and the ball. Once the ball is secured by him, he is fair game to be tackled. If that tackle is fundamentally sound but looks hard, there is still no reason to flag it.

 

[Redux]

10 seconds into the Music City Bowl.....TARGETING!!!

Senior, last game as Cardinal. 1 whole down before being ejected for ANOTHER questionable targeting penalty.

 

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

another bullsh#t call. shoulder to chest shouldn't be targeting

 

[Apathy]

[SIZE=10.5pt]While I don't agree with Gerry getting ejected for his hit, I think your article misses some key points. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]First, Gerry wasn't ejected for hitting with the crown of the helmet. There are two different rules for targeting: Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4). Gerry was ejected for the second rule and while I don’t’ agree with him being ejected for the hit, he certainly made helmet to helmet contact with the receiver in both videos.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Second, as a football official, I don't think that negative press is scaring referees into doing their jobs properly. I think most referees are doing the best they can with the rule book that they have been given. To say that we need to scrap the targeting rule because it is being applied too strictly in the name of player safety is ridiculous. If the NCAA wants to work for the safety of the players they won’t eliminate the rule all together, but continue making incremental changes until it’s being applied more appropriately and consistently. Howeva….[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Many of the calls that officials make are subjective. Holding, pass interference, and targeting all require officials to make split second decisions on whether or not to throw the flag and sometimes mistakes are made but the official should always err on the side of player safety. Everybody should care more about player safety, instead of poo-pooing torn ligaments, broken clavicles and players carted off the field on stretchers. People’s lives can be ruined from concussions and the issue shouldn’t be taken lightly.[/SIZE]

As an official for about 10 years now and watching the game with my dad who's been an official since 89', Gerry's hit wasn't targeting. Gerry made one of the most fundamental tackles a defender could ever make. Gerry had the right state of mind on turning his helmet to his side and drive his shoulder pad into the receiver.

There is a angle from the endzone and you can clearly see his left shoulder pad pop up from making contact. Just because the side of his helmet made contact with the receivers helmet doesn't mean it deserves to be flagged as targeting.

KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.

Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.

Nate Gerry's shoulder pad did hit the receiver in his helmet....BUT his tackle doesn't full under the Target definition as I highlighted above so again, Nate Gerry's tackle was a legal tackle.

 

[jsneb83]

If the parameters for holding are so obvious why isn't it called consistently?

The parameters for targeting are spelled out in the rule book, they aren't vague. And if you go by the rulebook below, the UCLA call isn't completely crazy.

Article 3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Article 4: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

Defenseless Player: A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless.

People need to get used to a different type of football.

Gerry did not make contact with the crown of his helmet.

The receiver actually turned around, saw Gerry coming, and instinctively, started going into a defensive position when he was hit. He was not defenseless.

 

[Redux]

^ exactly

 

[huKSer]

10 seconds into the Music City Bowl.....TARGETING!!!

Senior, last game as Cardinal. 1 whole down before being ejected for ANOTHER questionable targeting penalty.

I've been watch most of the bowls this year.

There seems to be one, and exactly one, targeting call per game.

Baylor vs UNC had one targeting call overturned (Cunningham agreed with this!), but was quickly rectified by a call on a WR.

Does this seem to be a quota system?

 

[FrankWheeler]

he certainly made helmet to helmet contact with the receiver in both videos.

Every offensive and defensive lineman has scuff or paint marks on his helmet after a dozen plays in a normal game. According to your (their) logic, each scuff mark should result in an ejection, because those marks come from helmet to helmet contact.

Not exactly, those wouldn't be considered defenseless players according to the rule.

 

[FrankWheeler]

Again, I didn't agree with the call when it happened and I don't agree with it now. My main point all along is that I would rather see officials err on the side of safety and get it wrong than not.