Targeting the offense

[MichiganDad3]

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.

I agree, and my opinion is that it is ruining the game. I don't watch the NBA anymore because of this. Rules have been changed to create one-on-one plays that result in a single player being a star. I liked the old team based game of basketball, and I like good defensive football.

 

[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").

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).

Haha, oh dear. I'm 6'3". Give me a 5'8" guy and I'll show you ten ways I can tackle him soundly without the top of my head hitting his face. It really isn't difficult.

Look, I was at the game. I saw it live and 20 different times on the TV replay. SJB went for the kill shot. It was a great hit. I liked it. But he clearly went for a big hit when he didn't have to. Let's not complicate it, and pretend that the laws of physics or the shape of the human body somehow made it impossible for him to make the tackle in any other reasonable way.

 

[deedsker]

Watching UCF vs. Louisville and the announcers tried calling a hit targeting on a Louisville player that ducked down and cleanly tried to shoulder charge the runner. The UCF player, however, dipped his body and head to cause the Louisville player's shoulder to hit his head. What else is the Louisville guy going to do? Trip everyone for tackles?

 

[huKSer]

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".

So we should hire refs that have ESP?

 

[MLB 51]

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.

Like I said in another thread, he used his forearm to the players back, instead of wrapping up. I think that had a lot to do with why he was ejected.

 

[The King]

So...

If I'm an offensive player every time I touch the ball I'd just duck my head as low as possible... especially as a WR. I'd crouch and duck my head. This rule is just ridiculous.

In the SC/Tenn game, a WR catches the ball, slightly ducks with legs and head, and gets nailed in the head. If he doesn't duck/lower his head, it's a good hit right at the shoulders. But since he changed his levels, it was a head shot and the guy was ejected for targeting. Awesome.

 

[gbr93]

So...

If I'm an offensive player every time I touch the ball I'd just duck my head as low as possible... especially as a WR. I'd crouch and duck my head. This rule is just ridiculous.

In the SC/Tenn game, a WR catches the ball, slightly ducks with legs and head, and gets nailed in the head. If he doesn't duck/lower his head, it's a good hit right at the shoulders. But since he changed his levels, it was a head shot and the guy was ejected for targeting. Awesome.

I thought it was bs all around. Did everything you are supposed to, wrapped up and drove through the hit. The very next play clowney destroyed the rb same as Michigan game and it doesn't get called. Inconsistency

 

[gbr93]

If anyone is watching the Georgia Vandy game, a d-lineman just got kicked out for Uga and it was the worst call I've ever seen. Te guy even pulled his head back to make sure there was no contact and it was still upheld. This is really getting out if hand.

 

[Hooked on Huskers]

Totally subjective. I hate the rule. Last night I watched UCF vs. UL game. CB player (Louisville) was clearing targeting, almost KO, but no flag at all.

"It's Division I football! It ain't intramurals!""Go play intramurals, brother … go play intramurals"

 

[tmfr15]

Minnesota QB just proved my point.

 

[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).

Haha, oh dear. I'm 6'3". Give me a 5'8" guy and I'll show you ten ways I can tackle him soundly without the top of my head hitting his face. It really isn't difficult.

Look, I was at the game. I saw it live and 20 different times on the TV replay. SJB went for the kill shot. It was a great hit. I liked it. But he clearly went for a big hit when he didn't have to. Let's not complicate it, and pretend that the laws of physics or the shape of the human body somehow made it impossible for him to make the tackle in any other reasonable way.

Lol, I would love to see this, trying to tackle full speed in the open field.

 

[Skers95711]

I would just like to know how do you change the rule now? I disagree with the rule completley it's changing football in a bad way. Granted they are doing it for safety, but how can you judge or determine someone's intent on a hit?.... you can't. So a player who hits too high when someone lowers their shoulder is now considered to be intending to hurt someone?? (Bottom line you have no idea what the intent is, therefore the rule is dumb) As said many times the game is fast paced and sometime you can't help it, but since this rule is obviously going to be under heavy scrutiny after the season, what changes about it? Does the penalty stand without the ejection option? I guess how do you you effectively put in this rule without changing the game or have people complaing about it? It is still going to come down to a judgement call by the refs, but ultimatley if it comes down to just a 15 yrd penalty then would people still be upset? May be the wrong place to post this or has already been discuessed, but honestly I am just curious. Long time viewer, just now have decided to come out of my shell to post...go easy on me.

 

[shyndy]

someone mentioned before that they should consider using the soccer system instead of just flat, immediate ejections

 

[Skers95711]

Thanks shyndy for the fill in... makes sense and probably not a bad idea

 

[Count 'Bility]

The irony of this concussion stuff is hilarious to me. We create a bunch of penalties and rules to prevent it, but yet proceed to teach the offensive player how to initiate such detrimental contact for the sake of 15 yards after all.

Are we sure this isnt a government operation?