Targeting vs. Clean Hits

It's just a weird rule that only applies to people near the football. I saw AJ Natter take a blindside hit last week that absolutely would have been targeting if he had the ball in his hand.

 
I think the tiny pads they wear these days allows them to run faster which results in more violent collisions.

 
Make everyone wear knee and thigh pads. Bigger shoulder pads. Hip and tail bone pads. Would slow things down a bit.

 
I think they should rescind the targeting rules. Its political correctness running through the colleges and owners.

Runners and players usually put their heads down when near contact- its reflexive. Its a contact sport and that is why they wear pads and helmets. Hard hits to cause fumbles and drops is part of the game.

I played several decades ago. There were rules then for unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct. The refs could eject players from the game if they thought the hit was intended to cause injury. This is subjective but the current targeting is not perfect in its implementation either.

Go back to the previous rules. Eject the bad ones who can't control their emotions.

 
URSS said:
I think they should rescind the targeting rules. Its political correctness running through the colleges and owners.

Runners and players usually put their heads down when near contact- its reflexive. Its a contact sport and that is why they wear pads and helmets. Hard hits to cause fumbles and drops is part of the game.

I played several decades ago. There were rules then for unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct. The refs could eject players from the game if they thought the hit was intended to cause injury. This is subjective but the current targeting is not perfect in its implementation either.

Go back to the previous rules. Eject the bad ones who can't control their emotions.
Click to expand...
I don't like how it's being called right now but completely disgree with this post. It's politically correct now to look at the scientific research that shows the serious harm caused to football players' brains at every level and try to do something to prevent it? Huh?
It doesn't matter what was done 20+ years ago. 20+ years ago the extent of the damage done to the brain was not known.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
URSS said:
I think they should rescind the targeting rules. Its political correctness running through the colleges and owners.

Runners and players usually put their heads down when near contact- its reflexive. Its a contact sport and that is why they wear pads and helmets. Hard hits to cause fumbles and drops is part of the game.

I played several decades ago. There were rules then for unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct. The refs could eject players from the game if they thought the hit was intended to cause injury. This is subjective but the current targeting is not perfect in its implementation either.

Go back to the previous rules. Eject the bad ones who can't control their emotions.
Click to expand...
I don't like how it's being called right now but completely disgree with this post. It's politically correct now to look at the scientific research that shows the serious harm caused to football players' brains at every level and try to do something to prevent it? Huh?
It doesn't matter what was done 20+ years ago. 20+ years ago the extent of the damage done to the brain was not known.
Click to expand...
But the rule only focuses on the ball carrier. What about all the other head impacts? IMO, this rule is political correctness at its worst.

 
Last year in the Iowa game, when the Iowa defender came flying in head first and plastered and knocked out his own teammate nothing was called. probably cuz theyre on the same team? It's hypocrisies like these that shows the NFL and NCAA are not genuinely serious about the concussion issue. Theyre just halfassing making it appear as if theyre implementing things to remedy it. Cam Newton thursday night. never left the game. The two guys that committed those hits still have not been penalized.

Everyone is always going to b!^@h like hell when one of our guys get tossed, and b!^@h like hell when someone elses doesnt for the exact same hit. but at the end of the day, this is the way it is. And until this generation of player is fully purged from the game, the player that learned how to play this certain way, these goofy calls are gonna continue to be an inconsistency until a new wave of players who are learnin to play a little different all the way down to the youth level where more and more urgency is put towards this issue, begins to influx into the game at this level. It is what it is. its part of the game now. And coaches need to adjust and prepare to the dynamic of it.

 
The thing about the targeting rule is there's no room for incidental helmet contact. I'll bet before the targeting rule was put in place most tackles involved at least some amount of helmet to helmet contact. Heck, that's how they used to teach a text book tackle: put your facemask in the guys numbers, wrap him up, and drive into him. And that always resulted in helmet-to-helmet contact. Always. But now, no matter how slight the helmet-to-helmet contact is[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]and no matter whose fault it is[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]the defensive guy gets the ejection death penalty. Just look at Gerry's ejection hit from the Iowa game:



Pause it at the 0:32 point. Then step through to look at the hit.

  • 0:32 — Gerry closes in for the hit on Iowa #4, Tevaun Smith. Gerry looks like he's leading with his left shoulder at this point. But #4 is laid out going for the ball, arms and head extended.
  • 0:33 — As they get closer and make contact you can see Gerry pulling his head away and clearly leading with his shoulder. But #4 is laid out almost horizontal with his arms and head extended. They make helmet-to-helmet contact as Gerry helmet brushes past him. It's not clear whether contact is made by the "crown" of Gerry's helmet or the back of it.
  • 0:34 — Gerry is past #4. His hit on #4 was a glancing blow. This wasn't a crunching hit, and the helmet-to-helmet contact seemed like a glancing, incidental contact.
Based on the rule this is probably "targeting" inasmuch as Gerry's helmet made contact with the WR's helmet. (Although it's hard to say whether it's the crown or the back of Gerry's helmet that makes contact. And I'm not sure what "forcible" contact is.) If you consider the WR laid out like that to be a defenseless player, then this is definitely targeting. (See second provision below.) In any case I certainly don't think it was a cheap shot by Gerry. He led with his shoulder. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe they need to clarify the rule to account for situations where the ball carrier himself is leading with *his* head, and it results in incidental contact.
default_dunno.gif
:

Here are a couple of provisions of the 2016 targeting rule cited in an HB Nation article: LINK

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really think the rule-makers have no idea what problem they are trying to address and actively ignore what causes concussions. They feel the need to do something about head injuries but they are concerned about not changing the game. As a result, they have a set of rules that do nothing to make it safer.

Requiring players to wrap-up on every tackle would prevent head injuries way more than the current targeting rules. They want the overt physicality & jarring hits while any injuries are the players' fault. Those aren't really compatible with the previous or current rules

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top