NCAA Looking to Adjust Targeting Reviews

[RunMickeyRun02]

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.

Neither do I. This is the NCAA we're talking about.

[Enhance]

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.

IIRC that was PJ Smith in the 2010 game in Lincoln. I'd have to see the play again, but if memory serves, it very well could've been called targeting based on today's interpretation and enforcement of the rule.

[Landlord]

Y'all are both wrong, it was Mr. Cortney Osborne. The most egregious error and/or deliberate slight was the refs not calling the fumble.

 

 

[Making Chimichangas]

It was this game, and in particular this commentary by Ed Cunningham, that made me hate Ed Cunningham. Only he can take a play where a tackle is a hard legal hit and turn it into "targeting."

[huKSer]

 

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.

 

If the offensive player does this, by definition, he can't be defenseless - in my opinion. There still can be other penalties like spearing, but not targeting

[dvdcrr]

The NCAA is a joke of an institution, (absolutely lost all credibility AND moral authority by not giving Penn St. the football death penalty for even one year AND backed off most other sanctions proving to them the all mighty dollar is more important than doing what is right) and so is the very idea that you would throw a player out of the game of football for a single hard hit. Almost goes against everything America stands for. Namely freedom of choice. The players choose to play the game. We choose to watch. If they do not want CTE they are free to enjoy as fruitful and long of a life as they want. And if we want to watch consenting adults bash each others brains in we should be able to. AMERICA.

We should not have a couple rooms full of pansy ass administrators and, of course attorneys, altering and completely ruining this most sacrosanct of American pastimes. I can honestly say that these changes involving targeting ejections and stupid use of replay have caused the acrimonious and agonizingly slow death of one of the better, more wistful parts of my SOUL.

[RunMickeyRun02]

The NCAA is a joke of an institution, (absolutely lost all credibility AND moral authority by not giving Penn St. the football death penalty for even one year AND backed off most other sanctions proving to them the all mighty dollar is more important than doing what is right) and so is the very idea that you would throw a player out of the game of football for a single hard hit. Almost goes against everything America stands for. Namely freedom of choice. The players choose to play the game. We choose to watch. If they do not want CTE they are free to enjoy as fruitful and long of a life as they want. And if we want to watch consenting adults bash each others brains in we should be able to. AMERICA.

We should not have a couple rooms full of pansy ass administrators and, of course attorneys, altering and completely ruining this most sacrosanct of American pastimes. I can honestly say that these changes involving targeting ejections and stupid use of replay have caused the acrimonious and agonizingly slow death of one of the better, more wistful parts of my SOUL.

I love you man.

[Saunders]

 

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.

 

But unfortunately, that's not how it's called.

 

 

https://twitter.com/FanSportsClips/status/772622653882454016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

A simple (logical) reading of the rules should tell you that #1 was fine, and #2 was a penalty. But that's not how it was called.