Targeting the offense

[tmfr15]

Here is a different slant on the whole targeting rule debate. I read in the SJB thread about how some offensive players are doing what they can to draw flags. And that point was actually proven by Robert Griffin III the other day in a quote where he said he tried to bait defensive players near the boundary in an effort to draw a penalty.

Further than that though, I think that QBs in particular should be held to account when leading offensive players into potential bad collisions with defenders. Both the SJB hit and the Ole Miss hit are examples of that. When a QB leads a receiver into danger, that should be taken into account when determining if the hit was a penalty. As it has been said multiple times in this debate, defensive players have to make split second decisions and as a result sometimes the hits are bad. But everybody acts like the hitter is some head hunter and should be kicked out. Does anybody believe that the hitter suffers no damage from these collisions? Heck, sometimes its the defender that doesn't get up after one of those.

Nobody is saying there aren't guys out there who are out to make a big hit and are hoping to take the offensive player out. But those guys, I believe are the minority. Most are out there just playing the game and trying to react on the fly.

In addition to the considerations for the offensive players being led into big hits, officials also need to pay more attention to what ball carriers and offensive blockers are doing to defenders. I can't count how many times I have seen a ball carrier use a stiff arm/face mask to get around a defender and as a result yank hard and twist the neck of the defender... NO FLAG. Really? Then a defender breathes on a face mask.... BOOM here comes the hanky.

Offensive players also use the crown of their helmet against defenders both to block and to bulldoze. Yes, there is supposed to be a rule addressing this, but if the defensive rule is applied with complete inconsistency, then its offensive counterpart is even less enforced.

I don't know where we go from here. But I would like to see the same concern for defenders as what is being put out there in terms of wanting to protect offensive guys.

 

[TAKODA]

Meh, the rule is subjective and this is year 1 of it in CFB so as time goes on, there will be some refining.

The coaches and players all hate it but believe that the rule has merit to protect players! Fans don't have a vested interest in the collisions so they are the ones complaining about it the most. I don't like the "subjective nature" it allows because if you compare SJB's hit last week to the Ole Miss hits, SJB's was less apparent then those and the official review overturned the ejection of the Ole Miss players, but SJB's call was not and he was out.

As for these types of calls being increased to include "O" players, I think the answer there is a personal foul flag when appropriate (rather than additional rules or actions that will cause even more subjective calls)!

 

[Judoka]

Meh, the rule is subjective and this is year 1 of it in CFB so as time goes on, there will be some refining.

The coaches and players all hate it but believe that the rule has merit to protect players! Fans don't have a vested interest in the collisions so they are the ones complaining about it the most. I don't like the "subjective nature" it allows because if you compare SJB's hit last week to the Ole Miss hits, SJB's was less apparent then those and the official review overturned the ejection of the Ole Miss players, but SJB's call was not and he was out.

As for these types of calls being increased to include "O" players, I think the answer there is a personal foul flag when appropriate!

While I do believe it's intent is to help, I think it will only redirect where the disabling injury occurs. Knee related injuries will likely rise, as players adjust how and where they make hard open field tackles.

 

[Landlord]

Two things that are just extraordinarily stupid about the new targeting rules:

1. It's impossible to properly tackle someone without your helmet being the forward-most part of your body. It's not bad coaching, it's just human anatomy. Unless you do a pee-squat to get low, your head is going to be in front of the rest of your body. That doesn't mean you'll always collide with it first, but it means chances are there's going to be contact.

2. Being able to overturn the ejection but not the penalty. If you decide the player deserves to get ejected, you're admitting that you were wrong. But still penalizing a team for it.

Just absolutely unthinkably incompetent.

 

[The King]

I wonder if they will start kicking out a running back who can drop his head trying to 'truck' someone at any given time... or any other player for that matter. Because they are "leading" with their helmet...

 

[iowahuskers]

I wonder if they will start kicking out a running back who can drop his head trying to 'truck' someone at any given time... or any other player for that matter. Because they are "leading" with their helmet...

This makes me mad they don't call both ways. It really just doesn't make any sense to me. Everything happens very quickly on the field and most of the time you don't even realize what you do, all you care about is tackling the offense. However, there are some defenders that intentionally target the offense and should be penalized for that. Intentionally targeting is very obvious compared to a defender trying to legally tacking some one.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Bottom line is, it's on offensive game. Offense is what the general fans want to see. They want touchdowns. They want points. Oregon's offense is a draw. Michigan St's and Iowa's are not. People want to see high flying and wide open. They are fans of 48-35, not 17-6. As long as this is how it is, defense will NEVER get benefit of the doubt in any situation. Matter of fact, it appears both college and pro is coming up with new and amazing ways year after year to make it more and more difficult to play defense-as if the evolution of the offenses wasnt hard enough to keep up with.

 

[TAKODA]

Two things that are just extraordinarily stupid about the new targeting rules:

1. It's impossible to properly tackle someone without your helmet being the forward-most part of your body. It's not bad coaching, it's just human anatomy. Unless you do a pee-squat to get low, your head is going to be in front of the rest of your body. That doesn't mean you'll always collide with it first, but it means chances are there's going to be contact.

2. Being able to overturn the ejection but not the penalty. If you decide the player deserves to get ejected, you're admitting that you were wrong. But still penalizing a team for it.

Just absolutely unthinkably incompetent.

I have heard this from numerous people and while the implication of the overturning the ejection leads people to believe that the call should then be negated, I can separate the two because you can have an unintentional collision and be called for a personal foul and allowed to continue to play in the game. "Targeting" in my opinion should be referencing the intent (Cheap shot) to do harm to your opponent! (This is what the review should be for but those guys in the booth need to have a good understanding of what they need to look for)

So why did they come up with this new terminology rather than just calling it a personal foul that you could have been ejected from the game for all along? To make the point and stress the (Concussion) prevention awareness that has become recognized by all in the sport!

I would also agree with the post above stating this will lead to different injuries (knees, shins and ankles). I guess the defense to this is the "Lesser of two evils".

 

[JTrain]

For the most part, they don't flag incidental facemask to facemask contact. Had SJB kept his face forward and wrapped up, he wouldn't have been flagged. And ironically, it may have been a better result as the Purdue receiver may have held on to the ball for a four-yard loss.

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponentwith the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6)

Accepting that this was a penalty by the definition of the rule is not the same as agreeing that the rule is a good one. Personally, I don't like the rule. But SJB ducked his head and went for the big hit. That puts you at risk for the targeting call.

There are valid concerns about how this rule is written, whether or not it should even be in place, and the inconsistency among various conferences in enforcing it. But it is there for now, and the refs made the proper call based on the wording of it.

 

[JTrain]

There is no valid defense for separating the 15-yard penalty and the ejection. They are linked by rule. Meaning, the definition of the rule violation is exactly the same for the penalty and the ejection. To overturn the ejection is to admit that the rule was not violated, thus admitting that there is no reason for penalty.

 

[URSS]

I think the targeting rules should be eliminated and stick with unnecessary roughness and spearing. The referees should be basing their calls on their judgement that the intent was to hurt someone.

SJB's hit looked to me to a good hit. Defenders have to have the option to knock the ball loose. When two people are moving full speed into one another, the chances of helmets making contact with the other player and his helmet are high. If one flinches or tightens up, the head could come down and make contact. I saw later in a game where a runner used a straght arm to the defender's helmet- no call and the announcer made a favorable comment on the runner. I have seen other calls that are questionable. The referees seem to be heading to a zero tolerance attitude that, in my opinion, does not serve the interests of football.

Football is a contact sport and that is why the players were pads and helmets. You can't guaranatee no injuries but you can identify thugs who are tryinlg to hurt someone.

 

[Landlord]

For the most part, they don't flag incidental facemask to facemask contact. Had SJB kept his face forward and wrapped up, he wouldn't have been flagged. And ironically, it may have been a better result as the Purdue receiver may have held on to the ball for a four-yard loss.

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponentwith the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6)

Accepting that this was a penalty by the definition of the rule is not the same as agreeing that the rule is a good one. Personally, I don't like the rule. But SJB ducked his head and went for the big hit. That puts you at risk for the targeting call.

There are valid concerns about how this rule is written, whether or not it should even be in place, and the inconsistency among various conferences in enforcing it. But it is there for now, and the refs made the proper call based on the wording of it.

The thing with a play like this, and with most tackles, is that in motion you can tell SJB isn't trying to lead with his helmet, but to put his helmet in front of the carrier (fundamental tackling) and get him with the shoulder, slightly misjudging the angle and hitting with his helmet and shoulder simultaneously. Since a lot of this has to do with gemoetry and taking different angles, hardly ever do you have two players coming at each other from straight ahead. It would have actually been more dangerous, and worse fundamental football form, if he would have kept his head up on that specific instance.

 

[JTrain]

The thing with a play like this, and with most tackles, is that in motion you can tell SJB isn't trying to lead with his helmet, but to put his helmet in front of the carrier (fundamental tackling) and get him with the shoulder, slightly misjudging the angle and hitting with his helmet and shoulder simultaneously. Since a lot of this has to do with gemoetry and taking different angles, hardly ever do you have two players coming at each other from straight ahead. It would have actually been more dangerous, and worse fundamental football form, if he would have kept his head up on that specific instance.

I agree he wasn't trying to spear with his helmet, but the rule says nothing of intent. Contact was clearly made with the crown of the helmet, so it was a violation by rule. That is to say nothing of the value of the rule in the first place.

In regards to "fundamental tackling", there are obviously different opinions among defensive coaches. I've certainly heard many coaches and players say that head up is fundamental tackling ("see what you hit").

 

[iowahuskers]

The thing with a play like this, and with most tackles, is that in motion you can tell SJB isn't trying to lead with his helmet, but to put his helmet in front of the carrier (fundamental tackling) and get him with the shoulder, slightly misjudging the angle and hitting with his helmet and shoulder simultaneously. Since a lot of this has to do with gemoetry and taking different angles, hardly ever do you have two players coming at each other from straight ahead. It would have actually been more dangerous, and worse fundamental football form, if he would have kept his head up on that specific instance.

I agree he wasn't trying to spear with his helmet, but the rule says nothing of intent. Contact was clearly made with the crown of the helmet, so it was a violation by rule. That is to say nothing of the value of the rule in the first place.

In regards to "fundamental tackling", there are obviously different opinions among defensive coaches. I've certainly heard many coaches and players say that head up is fundamental tackling ("see what you hit").

I think him being 6'3" and the offensive player is 5'8"(ish) makes it very hard for him to tackle with his head up, if he tries to make the tackle with his head up it makes for an awkward tackle and a possibility of getting hurt. I understand the rule is you can't make contact with the crown of the helmet but it's just dumb. You are penalizing players for playing, it's making football wussificated (probably not a actual word, but you know what I mean).

 

[MichiganDad3]

Meh, the rule is subjective and this is year 1 of it in CFB so as time goes on, there will be some refining.

The coaches and players all hate it but believe that the rule has merit to protect players! Fans don't have a vested interest in the collisions so they are the ones complaining about it the most. I don't like the "subjective nature" it allows because if you compare SJB's hit last week to the Ole Miss hits, SJB's was less apparent then those and the official review overturned the ejection of the Ole Miss players, but SJB's call was not and he was out.

As for these types of calls being increased to include "O" players, I think the answer there is a personal foul flag when appropriate!

While I do believe it's intent is to help, I think it will only redirect where the disabling injury occurs. Knee related injuries will likely rise, as players adjust how and where they make hard open field tackles.

+1