Targeting clarification

[BrendanP]

With the new rule giving replay more leeway in determining targeting, I have to ask how some of these would be ruled if they'd occurred in the upcoming 2016 season:

Kentucky vs Tennessee: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qnZQtp0qI

I remember there was a thread on this earlier in the the season, and I still say no flag (no forcible contact to head or neck, no crown of the helmet, no launch, no defenseless player)

Indiana State vs Indiana: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x-hKMCGcrPA Called KCI plus flagrant (but could/should this have been called targeting so it goes upstairs for review?)

Ohio State/Iowa: Not even sure what this was for https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wzByIwUW2aI

What do you think the new IR rules will do to the number that get called on the field? What about the number upheld vs reversed? I understand that the targeting rule isn't going anywhere (though I still firmly believe that it has completely ruined college football) but is this the step that will make it less of a joke in the eyes of players, coaches, fans, and administrators?

[scrounge]

With the new rule giving replay more leeway in determining targeting, I have to ask how some of these would be ruled if they'd occurred in the upcoming 2016 season:

Kentucky vs Tennessee: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qnZQtp0qI

I remember there was a thread on this earlier in the the season, and I still say no flag (no forcible contact to head or neck, no crown of the helmet, no launch, no defenseless player)

Indiana State vs Indiana: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x-hKMCGcrPA Called KCI plus flagrant (but could/should this have been called targeting so it goes upstairs for review?)

Ohio State/Iowa: Not even sure what this was for https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wzByIwUW2aI

What do you think the new IR rules will do to the number that get called on the field? What about the number upheld vs reversed? I understand that the targeting rule isn't going anywhere (though I still firmly believe that it has completely ruined college football) but is this the step that will make it less of a joke in the eyes of players, coaches, fans, and administrators?

So this bizarre anti-targeting crusade continues....

KY/TN....if that's not forcible contact, then nothing is...of course it's forcible, and in the head/neck area to me. Want to make a case he wasn't defenseless at that point? Maybe, but I have no problem with the call. But to say there's no forcible contact? Credibility now gone.

IS/IN...one of the easiest calls I've seen. Of course it's targeting. But no need to even wasting anyone's time with a review, it's flagrant all on its own. What do you want, to eject him twice?

IA/OSU....seriously...if you don't know what this was for, then you are willfully evading the rule. Upward thrust, defenseless receiver, contact in the head. This play is used in clinics as a textbook for what needs to come out of the game. And I'm a massive Ohio State fan (and alum). So no fanboy enabling here.

Keep beating that deceased equine.

[bossman72]

I think replay could get involved in all of these.

The emphasis on adding a targeting call via replay was that the infraction be EGREGIOUS.  I think that KCI one would be egregious.

Now, the million dollar question:  can coaches challenge a no-call for targeting?

[Kalle]

IS/IN...one of the easiest calls I've seen. Of course it's targeting. But no need to even wasting anyone's time with a review, it's flagrant all on its own. What do you want, to eject him twice?

Yes, please. I would like that player to sit out several weeks if not the entire season. Complete disregard of player safety.

[Fatman325]

Brendan I will play along with your "This shouldn't be targeting game".
The KY play is interesting as it is possible that the receiver is not defenseless here. He has possession and takes a couple of steps before contact is made. He even looks up toward the defender. In full speed I see why targeting was called and it will be upheld in replay.
The Indiana play is a flagrant personal foul and doesn't even have to go upstairs for review. Because this foul occurred in the TGT era the crew went with TGT to make a point. Easy ejection and possible additional suspension by the conference.
Nice job getting a OSU version of the TGT vs Iowa. The view that they didn't show here was the EZ shot that showed the defender went upward into the head/neck area of the receiver. Easy ejection and confirmation.

Don't fight calling TGT and ejections. It is needed to make the game safer. Are there going to be some marginal ejections? Yes but the game will be better in 10 years because we went through the process.

[BlindZebra]

With the new rule giving replay more leeway in determining targeting, I have to ask how some of these would be ruled if they'd occurred in the upcoming 2016 season:

Kentucky vs Tennessee: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qnZQtp0qI - I agree with you, no foul here. Yeah, if you throw you will probably get supported, but on the field I wouldn't call it. My opinion, contact is to the chest and the indicator that tells me that is the head snaps forward instead of backwards. If contact was to the head/neck, the heads first movement is backwards...not forward.

I remember there was a thread on this earlier in the the season, and I still say no flag (no forcible contact to head or neck, no crown of the helmet, no launch, no defenseless player)

Indiana State vs Indiana: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x-hKMCGcrPA Called KCI plus flagrant (but could/should this have been called targeting so it goes upstairs for review?) - Screw this guy! Applaud the crew for making this flagrant.

Ohio State/Iowa: Not even sure what this was for https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wzByIwUW2aI - Here is a good call from what I can tell in the video. High hit with thrust upward and the head snaps back. Seems like an easy confirm.

What do you think the new IR rules will do to the number that get called on the field? What about the number upheld vs reversed? I understand that the targeting rule isn't going anywhere (though I still firmly believe that it has completely ruined college football) but is this the step that will make it less of a joke in the eyes of players, coaches, fans, and administrators?

Good stuff! My thoughts are above. I think the intent of the rule for replay to create TGT is for plays like this that don't get called. http://youtu.be/0fJxN3DWQCI

[AlUpstateNY]

Was once advised, "You can draw a detailed picture of a beautiful woman, but you can't "make love to" it, and sometimes you can write an extremely detailed and precise rule, that very often the human eye is unable to detect (in real time at ground level).

[BrendanP]

Was once advised, "You can draw a detailed picture of a beautiful woman, but you can't "make love to" it, and sometimes you can write an extremely detailed and precise rule, that very often the human eye is unable to detect (in real time at ground level).

Not too often that I agree with Al on something, but I just don't understand why those at the top are too stubborn to realize how big a disaster this has been. Why can't we have some leeway here? Say, only the most vicious hits are ejections, incidental helmet contact is a 15 yard penalty, and leave it at that?

To put my law student hat on here, to me, the targeting rule is much like the debate on the death penalty. Much like the fact that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, the targeting rule tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist. To no one's surprise, both have turned out to be complete and utter failures-innocent people being executed, and players who make clean hits being tossed out of games. Despite the expense, the innocence factor, and for want of some sort of revenge, society continues to execute people. Despite the fact that targeting is ruining college football, replacing it with some kind of soft game that's one piece of nylon away from backyard flag football, those at the top stubbornly insist that it's working and refuse to consider even modest changes to it. Again, despite quite literally everyone else telling you that it's an absolute abomination

*steps down off soapbox*

[Magician]

I would say targeting is far from a failure. I haven't seen the data to back it up, but it seems to me the number of high hits has gone down. Players are learning to lower their targets and wrapping up on tackles. Incidental contact to or with the helmet is no longer a foul. It needs to be forceful contact. Your suggestion would take something that is currently not a foul and make it a 15-yard penalty.

Since there new players every year it will probably never be a complete deterrent. But I see enough players using correct technique to not believe players can't react fast enough to lower their target. If you wrap up rather than blow up, the likelihood of a targeting foul go down exponentially. And this is protecting the hitter as much as it is the hittee.

[ncaaref1]

Not too often that I agree with Al on something, but I just don't understand why those at the top are too stubborn to realize how big a disaster this has been. Why can't we have some leeway here? Say, only the most vicious hits are ejections, incidental helmet contact is a 15 yard penalty, and leave it at that?

To put my law student hat on here, to me, the targeting rule is much like the debate on the death penalty. Much like the fact that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, the targeting rule tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist. To no one's surprise, both have turned out to be complete and utter failures-innocent people being executed, and players who make clean hits being tossed out of games. Despite the expense, the innocence factor, and for want of some sort of revenge, society continues to execute people. Despite the fact that targeting is ruining college football, replacing it with some kind of soft game that's one piece of nylon away from backyard flag football, those at the top stubbornly insist that it's working and refuse to consider even modest changes to it. Again, despite quite literally everyone else telling you that it's an absolute abomination

*steps down off soapbox*

I agree with Magician on this.  I think the targeting rule has been a success.  I know I have seen far fewer high hits since the targeting rule has been put in place than before.  When this rule was put in place, it was widely known that there would be a few players who were ejected when their intent wasn't to to target...but they went high on accident.  We can all agree that this has happened, but overall, I think the collateral damage has been minimal when considering the safety of the players.  I think the rule has done exactly what it was put in place to do...change the way players hit each other.  The players are going lower and that's a good thing.  With the tweak to the rule this year, I think most of the naysayers will be happier with this rule and the application of it.

On a different subject you mentioned in your post...and not to get into a non-football discussion, but I've heard all my life that the death penalty isn't a deterrent to crime, but no one I've heard from has ever given any proof of that.  Do you have any?  I would honestly like to see/hear it. 

I would venture to say that the death penalty is a deterrent to the guy who got caught.  He will never commit another crime.   

[Osric Pureheart]

Sometimes he didn't commit any crime at all.

[scrounge]

Not too often that I agree with Al on something, but I just don't understand why those at the top are too stubborn to realize how big a disaster this has been. Why can't we have some leeway here? Say, only the most vicious hits are ejections, incidental helmet contact is a 15 yard penalty, and leave it at that?

To put my law student hat on here, to me, the targeting rule is much like the debate on the death penalty. Much like the fact that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, the targeting rule tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist. To no one's surprise, both have turned out to be complete and utter failures-innocent people being executed, and players who make clean hits being tossed out of games. Despite the expense, the innocence factor, and for want of some sort of revenge, society continues to execute people. Despite the fact that targeting is ruining college football, replacing it with some kind of soft game that's one piece of nylon away from backyard flag football, those at the top stubbornly insist that it's working and refuse to consider even modest changes to it. Again, despite quite literally everyone else telling you that it's an absolute abomination

*steps down off soapbox*

I sincerely hope you analyze and argue better in your law classes than this. You assume facts not in evidence, assumptions that are not supported, and mix conclusions with premises.

You say targeting solves a problem that doesn't exist. Is the NFL paying out a billion dollars for a problem that doesn't exist? What's the biggest NFL news today? It's not the latest free agent signing - it's that the NFL medical director admitting for the first time that there is a link between CTE and football in a congressional hearing. The very existence of the game, at the least the prevention of the game from becoming 21st century boxing, is at stake. To me, that constitutes a problem that exists.

Then you beg the question that the rule has been a failure. Says who? Not me. In my opinion, it has had a very tangible and positive impact in changing the way the game is played and coached. The safety kill shot is much rarer, rugby style tackling is much more prevalent, coaches have heeded the lessons of this admittedly blunt instrument and are teaching players differently. Yes, some innocents have been caught up in it - it is a blunt instrument. But the lack of 100% perfection hardly constitutes this unsupported premise of failure.

Finally, the part about "Despite the fact that targeting is ruining college football, replacing it with some kind of soft game that's one piece of nylon away from backyard flag football, those at the top stubbornly insist that it's working and refuse to consider even modest changes to it. Again, despite quite literally everyone else telling you that it's an absolute abomination " is simply an unhinged diatribe, once again injecting conclusion in place of premise and facts. No, it is not ruining football by any objective measure, whether it's TV ratings or revenue. And one of my biggest pet peeves is the abject misuse of the word 'literally'....no, literally everyone else is NOT saying it's an absolute abomination. In fact, that assertion borders on the ludicrous.

*steps down off this soapbox*

[Fatman325]

I would not declare the rule a success or a failure. I am somewhere in the middle. The rule has had an impact on player behavior and coaches have changed techniques to make the game safer. Watching safeties coming in on defenseless receivers we have seen a great majority of them pull up where in years past they would lower the boom and try to separate the receiver from the ball. More of them have their heads up and are making some effort to wrap. These are positive changes.

The down side is that there have been some errors made in determining what targeting is or is not. The on field officials seem to be making adjustments to get all of the criteria correct. The on field officials also get a little break from the media because of the full speed aspect. Where we seem to be taking hits from the media is on replay decisions. Replay is held to a standard of 100% accuracy in a target of 1 minute 30 seconds. That is a tough gig. Now that TGT can be initiated from the booth that gig gets even tougher.

After scrutinizing the Kentucky play that Brendan shared I believe that to be a catch and a fumble and no TGT. There was some arguments for both sides and this is the type of play that is always going to be criticized from one side or the other.

Great discussion