Additional Targeting Penalty?

[BigRedBuster]

@Enhance Here's an example to consider.

I remember back in the 70s as a kid seeing defensive linemen talk about taping up their hands to be really hard, then when the ball is snapped, they would slam their hands into the ear hole of the O lineman.  Knowing what we know now, that very possibly was causing brain damage to the O linemen, especially with how horrible those helmets were.  

Did that add to the enjoyment of watching the game?  Should that still be allowed?

 

[Enhance]

Well I think it's important to point out that I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. Inept and unnecessary violence should be removed from the game where possible. There's no need for some of things that have been happening.

I'm more waxing poetic about wherever that line is in the sand and to what lengths we'll go before we ultimately decide it's just not worth it anymore. I don't know if I'm even really trying to make a point other than I think football decision makers' intentions are in the right place in most cases. But, there is a point where the game can't be made any safer without just changing the structure entirely. I'm curious what that point will end up being.

 

[RedSavage]

Well I think it's important to point out that I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. Inept and unnecessary violence should be removed from the game where possible. There's no need for some of things that have been happening.

I'm more waxing poetic about wherever that line is in the sand and to what lengths we'll go before we ultimately decide it's just not worth it anymore. I don't know if I'm even really trying to make a point other than I think football decision makers' intentions are in the right place in most cases. But, there is a point where the game can't be made any safer without just changing the structure entirely. I'm curious what that point will end up being.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

Given the cluster you-know-what that targeting has been, I'm glad the call can be overturned instead of still assessing the penalty.

I guess when I read it I still don't see how this part is any different than it was.  They could always overturn the targeting portion.

What I always struggled with when we the overturned the targeting, but still took 15 yards.  Is that portion going away?

 

[Enhance]

I guess when I read it I still don't see how this part is any different than it was.  They could always overturn the targeting portion.

According to what I've seen, in the past, if a ref called targeting and reviewed it, but determined it was not targeting, the penalty would still stand and the yardage would be assessed.

What they're saying now is if they call targeting, review it, and they determine it's not targeting, then the penalty will not stand and the yardage will not be assessed. It's now either all or nothing which seems fair.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Well I think it's important to point out that I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. Inept and unnecessary violence should be removed from the game where possible. There's no need for some of things that have been happening.

I'm more waxing poetic about wherever that line is in the sand and to what lengths we'll go before we ultimately decide it's just not worth it anymore. I don't know if I'm even really trying to make a point other than I think football decision makers' intentions are in the right place in most cases. But, there is a point where the game can't be made any safer without just changing the structure entirely. I'm curious what that point will end up being.

I also think that's where the discussion needs to be made.  We agree that recently, they have been taking it too far and the enforcement of the rules hasn't been clear and consistent...and that's a detriment to the game.

I can see where the refs need to throw the flag if it's questionable.  But, they need to have the ability pick up the flag and wave it off if, after review, it's different than what the ref thought he saw. 

 

[teachercd]

Give a choice to the team that was flagged for it...

Choices:

A:  The player that was flagged is ejected

B:  Automatic TD for the team that the targeting violation was committed against

It will be so funny to see how fast coaches pick "A" and let their own player be ejected from a game over giving up points.  

 

[mnhusker]

Until players on offense are also considered part of the injury problem then I will continue to be frustrated with this rule. Too many of these calls appear to happen when the offensive player moves into a dangerous zone after the defensive player has committed to what would have been a safe tackle.  I would be bummed out if my workplace only asked half the team to participate in safety.  

 

[BigRedBuster]

Until players on offense are also considered part of the injury problem then I will continue to be frustrated with this rule. Too many of these calls appear to happen when the offensive player moves into a dangerous zone after the defensive player has committed to what would have been a safe tackle.  I would be bummed out if my workplace only asked half the team to participate in safety.  

That is a major problem and I firmly believe that needs to be considered by the refs when they review the play and they should pick up the flag and wave off the penalty if it shows the offensive player moves in a way that causes the questionable contact after the defender commits to the play.

 

[teachercd]

A game I was coaching last year or maybe the season before...the other teams RB (I think) was kicked out for targeting while running with the ball.  Their coach went crazy and was kicked out...

I would have been mad too but I don't get kicked out of games because I am not bananas and I realize that it is just a game and no big deal...but that was the first time I had seen in called in one of our games.  It ended up giving us a first and goal at the 2!

It ended with us getting stopped on 4th down at the 8.

 

[brophog]

Of course there's an inherent risk to play.  What the rules need to do is take out the un-needed risk.  

Meaning, if there's a good football play that for all intents and purposes is performed by a defender to prevent the offense to be successful, fine.

If there is a football play where the intent of the defender is to cause injury to the offensive player, that's not fine and that shouldn't be encouraged in the game.

Now defining all of that is the essence of this entire debate.  I think there have been a number of times in Husker games where there was a good football play that did nothing more than prevent the offense to be successful, nobody was injured....yet we had a player ejected.  THAT needs to be figured out and prevented from happening.  That takes away from the game.

However, we all know of hits in games where it's pretty clear the defender just wanted to go lay someone out and it really didn't have anything to do with the goal of the game.  That needs to be eliminated as much as possible from the game.

Great post, btw.

One of the things that I think has gotten lost in the bigger conversation on the issue, is why the ejection was added here when most violent actions in the game only suffer a yardage penalty.

That reason was to make an emphasis strong enough to change behavior. It’s not just a punishment, but a means to change decades of defensive philosophy. The problem that has arisen is we constantly see players change that behavior, by doing things like lowering their target, and still getting punished. What can, and often does happen when someone changes their behavior like this but still gets such a severe punishment is apathy sets in. Who cares if you’re doing what you’re supposed to do if you’re getting punished, anyhow. This is most readily seen in the NFL where fines are also part of the punishment.

That’s why the proposed idea of potentially multiple game suspensions was just a terrible idea. I’d actually go the other way and get rid of the ejection altogether. By and large, players and teams have adapted. The point was made and it’s time to make a fair, common sense oriented, set of rules. 

 

[gobiggergoredder]

According to what I've seen, in the past, if a ref called targeting and reviewed it, but determined it was not targeting, the penalty would still stand and the yardage would be assessed.

What they're saying now is if they call targeting, review it, and they determine it's not targeting, then the penalty will not stand and the yardage will not be assessed. It's now either all or nothing which seems fair.

I hope that’s the way it is.  Only makes sense.