Nebraska targeting

[BrendanP]

Thinking about it.  The thing that's horrible about the call was the ejection, not necessarily the penalty.   That's what they need to change is the automatic ejection.  Ejection should be for flagrant fouls.

Don't try telling that to anybody in charge in the NCAA. In my state at the high school level, targeting is a 15-yard penalty, and it's only to be called when a player leads with and initiates contact with the crown of the helmet to the head of another player. Case in point, the one I flagged back in October, in which a linebacker drove his helmet into the ball carrier's facemask. That's fair.

I'm not against a rule like that; what I am against is having that wide a gray area and saying, "When in question it is a foul" and kicking out players for any little thing. Now there's a proposal in the works by some of the higher ups in the AAC that would make it more like basketball's flagrant foul, where flagrant 1 isn't an ejection unless it's done again, and flagrant 2 is an automatic ejection. (Seen here from the man himself: https://twitter.com/tjmcaulay/status/655492604327411712) But that has to pass the rules committee. From what I've read, they seem set in their ways, and some on this board have even said that the targeting rule will get even more strict. So unfortunately, this is probably going to get even more commonplace. I might suggest shifting over to the NFL.

[dvasques]

If that play makes it to the CFO review RR will either need to say this was not a foul or give a long and clear explanation as to why this was a foul.

[east louis]

I didn't agree w/ DQ of Nebraska player,IMHO made a legal tackle,GOTTA LET EM PLAY--if good common sense is used,you'll know when its bad beyond a shadow of a doubt

[Osric Pureheart]

Having made things the way they are, if they try to change the rule now, I forsee a gaggle of lawyers waiting to sue on behalf of someone who was playing after the rule change (or, more likely, on behalf of his insurance) and ended up with post-concussion syndrome.

"The committee put the rule in place in response to well-founded concerns about player safety, didn't it?"
"The committee then, despite clear evidence that it was having a positive effect on players' tackling technique, relaxed the rule, didn't it?"

This line of thinking does not finish anywhere good for anyone whose rate is under $500 an hour.

[bossman72]

This is targeting much like a grab of the jersey is holding.  You are correct by rulebook definition, but this is a terrible call on the field and by common sense standards.

[Magician]

This is targeting much like a grab of the jersey is holding.  You are correct by rulebook definition, but this is a terrible call on the field and by common sense standards.

I agree this isn't targeting but that isn't a great analogy. Holding is an advantage/disadvantage foul and targeting is a safety foul. They have different philosophies.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[bossman72]

I agree this isn't targeting but that isn't a great analogy. Holding is an advantage/disadvantage foul and targeting is a safety foul. They have different philosophies.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

What I was trying to get at is that Targeting shouldn't be automatic based strictly on the rulebook definitions.  This targeting call is technically correct because it "meets all the criteria", but I think universally we all think this is a poor call based on common sense and spirit of the rule.

[BrendanP]

What I was trying to get at is that Targeting shouldn't be automatic based strictly on the rulebook definitions.  This targeting call is technically correct because it "meets all the criteria", but I think universally we all think this is a poor call based on common sense and spirit of the rule.

I'm honestly surprised there's someone on this site that agrees with me on this. You even suggest that it should be revisited, you get your head bitten off and lectured about how football will magically disappear. (despite the fact that a slippery slope argument is actually a logical fallacy.)

I've always been a pragmatist, and I think this season has made it patently obvious that changes need to be made. Doing the same thing always yields the same results. It's failed spectacularly this year, so what makes you think continuing on the same path will get different results?

[JasonTX]

I'm honestly surprised there's someone on this site that agrees with me on this. You even suggest that it should be revisited, you get your head bitten off and lectured about how football will magically disappear. (despite the fact that a slippery slope argument is actually a logical fallacy.)

I've always been a pragmatist, and I think this season has made it patently obvious that changes need to be made. Doing the same thing always yields the same results. It's failed spectacularly this year, so what makes you think continuing on the same path will get different results?

If I recall correctly, back when the targeting rule were written the way they currently are, the rule makes mentioned that they knew there would be some, "innocent bystanders", getting DQ'd as a result of the rules.  They were willing to make that sacrifice because through time it would change the mentality of players.  I am sure the Nebraska hit, they knew there would be some like that, which appear to be legal, but players will see that and definitely think twice because if they erred on that hit what else could be erred on.  Bottom line for players, don't do anything remotely close to going to the head.  Head up and wrap up around the torso.

[Fatman325]

 Great comments by Jason. The rules writers knew that there were going to be casualties with the implementation of the rule. There were casualties when the NFL made their changes. The advantages that the NFL has is that it can fine players for borderline hits and all of the officials are trained weekly by the same organization. The NCAA doesn't have that luxury.
 At this point in the process we should be getting better at the decisions made on the field by gathering and having discussions. Secondly we should be getting better with the replay process in identifying where the forcible contact happened. I think that across the country there have been some replay judgements that have caused questions.
 Rather than be critical of individual decisions or the rule how about offering a better rule or implementation process? I favor the basketball type rule of a 15 yard penalty for contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless player and a 15 yard penalty and ejection for Forcible Contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless player. Add this with continued training for both on field and replay officials and the problem could gain more consistency across the country.
Happy New Year

[BrendanP]

Let's talk about the OSU call. While he lowered his helmet, the contact was to the chest, but alas, still upheld. What say you?

[Fatman325]

Easy call. That is using the crown of the helmet and it is a foul when used against any part of an opponent. Does not have to be the head or neck area.

[chaoslord]

Let's talk about the OSU call. While he lowered his helmet, the contact was to the chest, but alas, still upheld. What say you?

I was wondering when you were going to come say this was a bad call!

9-1-3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

 The crew nailed it.

[BrendanP]

I thought that was the pre-2014 version of the rule

[Legacy Zebra]

There are two types of targeting. The one we see most of the time is 9-1-4, forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player. The OSU play was 9-1-3, forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. 9-1-3 can be against any player anywhere on the body.

[Clear Lake ref]

Let's be glad Clemson wasn't called for one when the player making the interception attempted to hurdle the QB and missed, catching a ducking helmet with his knee.

He technically made forcible contact to the head of a defenseless player right? 

[Legacy Zebra]

I'm pretty sure you're being facetious, but just in case, the knee is not a body part listed in 9-1-4 as a possible "weapon" for targeting.

[dvasques]

regardless, he didn't target the QB... he was trying to avoid him

I didn't see the play... just going by the description

[scrounge]

I was wondering when you were going to come say this was a bad call!

9-1-3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

 The crew nailed it.

Yea, there really wasn't much question to me that it was a foul. Textbook 9-1-3 violation. And I'm a rabid Ohio State fan, very disappointed we didn't get to see him play the bulk of his last game. But the call was correct.

Now I do think it's part of the case to move the rule to a flagrant/non-flagrant distinction and allow some discretion, along with other mild cases like the UCLA-Neb, etc. But that's for another time.

[NoVaBJ]

Let's talk about the OSU call. While he lowered his helmet, the contact was to the chest, but alas, still upheld. What say you?

Correct call, not even close, under 9.1.3.

[riffraft]

Yea, there really wasn't much question to me that it was a foul. Textbook 9-1-3 violation. And I'm a rabid Ohio State fan, very disappointed we didn't get to see him play the bulk of his last game. But the call was correct.

Now I do think it's part of the case to move the rule to a flagrant/non-flagrant distinction and allow some discretion, along with other mild cases like the UCLA-Neb, etc. But that's for another time.

Personally (I also bleed scarlet & gray and was at the game) I think the time is now that the rule is revisited. While the call was correct according to the rules, it was way too harsh a penalty for the hit. And this is not the first time it has been the case. There is a big difference between flagrant and non-flagrant (while technically a foul) and there needs to be a distinction in how it is penalized.

[bama_stripes]

Sure, it's a harsh penalty.  But the rationale is to "get the head out of the game".  If that's what it takes...

[TxBJ]

Personally (I also bleed scarlet & gray and was at the game) I think the time is now that the rule is revisited. While the call was correct according to the rules, it was way too harsh a penalty for the hit. And this is not the first time it has been the case. There is a big difference between flagrant and non-flagrant (while technically a foul) and there needs to be a distinction in how it is penalized.

The thing is, the rule not only protects the guy getting hit, but in the case of using the crown of the helmet it really protects the person delivering the hit. Good call and don't change the rule I this case.

[TxSkyBolt]

A broken neck is an even harsher penalty.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[InsideTheStripes]

A broken neck is an even harsher penalty.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

+1