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

Smh. Just take away the pads and make them play rugby already. There's almost no point in having this game anymore. At least rugby is fast paced

 
At the very minimum it needs to be changed so that it isn't a penalty if the offensive player lowers his body and that's why there was contact to the head or neck.

 
worldsworstoutdoorsman said:
While I don't agree with Gerry getting ejected for his hit, I think your article misses some key points.



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 dont agree with him being ejected for the hit, he certainly made helmet to helmet contact with the receiver in both videos.



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 wont eliminate the rule all together, but continue making incremental changes until its being applied more appropriately and consistently. Howeva.



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. Peoples lives can be ruined from concussions and the issue shouldnt be taken lightly.
Click to expand...
I'll never understand someone like you. They got the call wrong. The rule as it stands is complete bull****. Player safety is important and you should know that there will always be injuries with a contact sport. You can not legislate injuries out of the game. Please understand that. A player should be ejected and penalized for malicious intent. Not for making a football play. If you cannot understand that, please take your latte and leave.
 
BigRedBuster said:
At the very minimum it needs to be changed so that it isn't a penalty if the offensive player lowers his body and that's why there was contact to the head or neck.
Click to expand...
I'd have no problem if that's how they interepreted the rule now. If a player can lower his body to brace for impact, is he really "defenseless"?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can't throw a flag for one definition of the rule then NOT overturn it because it almost looks like the other definition.

Zebras have too much power with the current targeting rule.

 
whateveritis1224 said:
Call on bosa was soft but it was 100% correct. Hits like that need to be removed
Click to expand...
I'm surprised they called it because watching it live I completely missed the hit. Upon review, I understood why he was ejected.

The crazy thing is he put himself in much more danger on that hit than he did the opponent, imho. That kind of tackling is how you break your neck.

 
The Bosa tackle was just weird. It was soft enough. But if done harder it could cause injury.

But, I can't figure out why he even did it that way.

 
There is a study now that shows we should be doing tackling drills without helmets. A physician also has publicly stated that noone under 18 should play football. Replay cant make up for poor officiating, and ambiguous rules are killing the game.

Fellas, get real cozy with premier league soccer, because in our litigious, safety first new nation, you will not have football for long

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing that makes the Nate Gerry call so stupid is the fact that the player in question was named defenseless, yet he has time to receive the ball, take 2 steps upfield, and brace himself for impact. That's not targeting a defenseless player.

https://vine.co/v/iAEgvEjtdVM

You want to talk about refs making a split second decision but ignore the fact that gerry had less than a split second to react to the receiver. Maybe he should have considered not turning up field...

 
dvdcrr said:
There is a study now that shows we should be doing tackling drills without helmets. A physician also has publicly stated that noone under 18 should play football. Replay cant make up for poor officiating, and ambiguous rules are killing the game.

Fellas, get real cozy with premier league soccer, because in our litigious, safety first new nation, you will not have football for long
Click to expand...
Well.
If I were to even make a recommendation on such a thing,I would say just the opposite.

If we are going to put an age limit on it, it's smarter to me to say no one OVER 18 should play.

Seriously, how many guys do you know that have bad health issues after just playing high school football.

It seems to me, most damage comes after high school when players become so big and fast.

.....and.....no I'm not promoting this. I just think this age idea is backwards.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top