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.

[MichiganDad3]

Part of the problem is that, even though the rule prohibits "targeting", it's actually used by the officials to penalize hard hits. The officials tend penalize players more harshly for a hard hit—even when it's a clean hit—than for a tackle that doesn't blow the guy up. If Gerry's hit in the UCLA game hadn't been a slobberknocker of a hit, he would not likely have been penalized with targeting. His head was off to the side and he hit the guy with his shoulder. The targeting rule is a BS rule that's in place to protect players—which is a good thing. But it's totally arbitrary. Probably a quarter of the tackles made during any game could be tagged as targeting due to incidental contact between helmets. But they're not called as such unless it's a hard hit.

And if the idiot refs really cared about safety, why do they miss so many facemasks? IMO, grabbing the facemask is more dangerous. Also, if safety is the objective, then change the helmet. Why does the helmet shell need to be so hard, and why is the padding so stiff. It shold be changed to be more like a baseball helmet, with a flexible shell to absorb contact, and padding that absorbs a little more of the impact.

[NUance]

 

Hooked on Huskers posted this in a different thread. lulz!

 

 

There's a pretty good discussion by Matt Davison and Greg Sharpe during the radio call. LINK

[FrankWheeler]

 

Part of the problem is that, even though the rule prohibits "targeting", it's actually used by the officials to penalize hard hits. The officials tend penalize players more harshly for a hard hit—even when it's a clean hit—than for a tackle that doesn't blow the guy up. If Gerry's hit in the UCLA game hadn't been a slobberknocker of a hit, he would not likely have been penalized with targeting. His head was off to the side and he hit the guy with his shoulder. The targeting rule is a BS rule that's in place to protect players—which is a good thing. But it's totally arbitrary. Probably a quarter of the tackles made during any game could be tagged as targeting due to incidental contact between helmets. But they're not called as such unless it's a hard hit.

And if the idiot refs really cared about safety, why do they miss so many facemasks? IMO, grabbing the facemask is more dangerous. Also, if safety is the objective, then change the helmet. Why does the helmet shell need to be so hard, and why is the padding so stiff. It shold be changed to be more like a baseball helmet, with a flexible shell to absorb contact, and padding that absorbs a little more of the impact.

 

 

Sounds like a money maker, get on that!

[MichiganDad3]

If Gerry was ejected for targeting a defenseless player, we need to look at that definition. A receiver diving or jumping and missing a catch is a defenseless player, and hitting a player after the ball is not caught should be enforced. But a player catching a ball and turning up field should not be considered a defenseless player.

QBs should not throw a ball that gets a receiver pounded. Receivers need to fear going across the middle. That is part of the game.

[MichiganDad3]

 

 

 

"Targeting" should be just that: Targeting! Gerry wasn't "targeting" that player with the intent of illegally injuring him. It was a tackle and their helmets unavoidably hit. It's football. It's a collision sport. That's why they wear helmets. On replay, somebody should have seen Gerry's tackle for the perfectly executed form tackle it was. Even Jim Mora knew it wasn't targeting. Does anybody think he would have been on the sideline joshing it up with Gerry if Gerry was trying to injure his players?

Sometimes I wonder how boxing or MMA even still exist as sports. People who worry so much about concussions in football should take some of their concern to those sports where the purpose is to concuss your opponent.

 

You can make your argument with a lot of rules can't you?

 

"Holding" should be just that: Holding!

 

Again, I don't think he should have been penalized for the UCLA hit, but I also can see how it could have been called in that split second.

 

If boxing and MMA had the participation levels that football does at all age levels there certainly would be people trying to clean them up.

 

 

But "Holding" doesn't rely on replay, and players aren't ejected for it. That's a big difference. I can live with bad penalties, which happen every game. I'm not ok with players being thrown out of games, ostensibly for playing dirty, when they're not. It's a much bigger issue in my opinion.

 

I'm not saying the refs are crooked, but this penalty would makes it very easy to alter the outcome of a game.

[FrankWheeler]

I find the 'it's part of the game' arguments interesting. Should rule changes ever be made?

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/football/

[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.

[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.

[huskerfan92]

 

Saw this tweet during the game and absolutely agree with Joel. Something has to be done, and I think changes will be made. Personally I think a player should get a warning and then if he does it again he gets ejected. Kind of like getting a yellow card and then a red card in soccer.

[FrankWheeler]

 

Saw this tweet during the game and absolutely agree with Joel. Something has to be done, and I think changes will be made. Personally I think a player should get a warning and then if he does it again he gets ejected. Kind of like getting a yellow card and then a red card in soccer.

 

I don't necessarily agree with the tweet. Has calling unnecessary roughness on quarterback hits encouraged offensive linemen to be bad blockers?

 

Stop trying to change football and make it soccer!

[huKSer]

Way beyond me but . . .

 

Along the lines of the video above, show a series of videos at live speed and replay slo-mo, then ask after each one two questions.

 

1) Do you think this play was targeting?

 

2) Do you think the officials called the play a) legal hit b) targeting,but overturned (game speed vs slo-mo) or c) targeting and confirmed.

 

I think having one group of officials in a central location deciding if a play is targeting or not will give consistancy to the call. One crew calling it one way and another crew the other is what gets my goat.

 

Ideally it would be on the Sunday and enforced the following week to keep the game moving.

[Enhance]

 

 

"Targeting" should be just that: Targeting! Gerry wasn't "targeting" that player with the intent of illegally injuring him. It was a tackle and their helmets unavoidably hit. It's football. It's a collision sport. That's why they wear helmets. On replay, somebody should have seen Gerry's tackle for the perfectly executed form tackle it was. Even Jim Mora knew it wasn't targeting. Does anybody think he would have been on the sideline joshing it up with Gerry if Gerry was trying to injure his players?

Sometimes I wonder how boxing or MMA even still exist as sports. People who worry so much about concussions in football should take some of their concern to those sports where the purpose is to concuss your opponent.

 

You can make your argument with a lot of rules can't you?

 

"Holding" should be just that: Holding!

 

Again, I don't think he should have been penalized for the UCLA hit, but I also can see how it could have been called in that split second.

 

If boxing and MMA had the participation levels that football does at all age levels there certainly would be people trying to clean them up.

 

 

Kernal had a good response to this. The other issue I would have with correlating holding to something like targeting is the variation in which the penalty is called. Holding, though subjective, has pretty obvious parameters for issuing the call. Targeting has a vague definition and an even more confusing implementation.

 

The bigger problem isn't so much the flag being thrown, but the review of the penalty. Just about everyone agrees Gerry did not target and made a sound tackle. What he did should not have been an ejection by any stretch of the imagination, and if they're going to call these penalties, then they need to do a much better job of reviewing them afterwards.

[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.

[FrankWheeler]

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.