Targeting
- Thread starter Virginia Redbird
- Start date
TIMMY
Well-known member
Many good thoughts as I knew there would be.
You'll never completely take the head out of the game. But you can minimize it on the defensive side. I went to Hawk tackling about 4 years ago. Google it. It's easy to teach. Really just a rugby tackle. You track the hip and do a double or single leg take-down. It works. And you're not asking a kid to get his head across the runner. If those types of techniques can be taught and become second nature the flags will go away.
10 the game needs great officials. Thanks for doing what you do.
Chi lawsuits against helmet companies are defiantly a coming issue.
Tom Petty RIP I'm gonna go pull out some vinyl.
You'll never completely take the head out of the game. But you can minimize it on the defensive side. I went to Hawk tackling about 4 years ago. Google it. It's easy to teach. Really just a rugby tackle. You track the hip and do a double or single leg take-down. It works. And you're not asking a kid to get his head across the runner. If those types of techniques can be taught and become second nature the flags will go away.
10 the game needs great officials. Thanks for doing what you do.
Chi lawsuits against helmet companies are defiantly a coming issue.
Tom Petty RIP I'm gonna go pull out some vinyl.
Hamdonger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 6,531
SgtHulka said:Speak for yourselfChi-bird said:
Your best work yet.
Shaking my head in disbelief. The man looks like a turtle.
Right on Timmy, Rest In Peace Tom Petty. One of the real gentlemen of the 'sport.' He played Redbird in 1990! (Lenny Kravitz opened and played one...friggin...song...for 15 minutes, no joke- one song opening act) Listened to Full Moon Fever over and over and over in 731 Manchester...
Redbirdfan21
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 1,339
Anyone heard if Spack has been asked about appealing the targeting call and 1st half suspension?
Virginia Redbird
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #26
Redbirdfan21 said:
I don't know an answer to the question but this article in the Pantagraph indicates to me that Coach Spack is not going to appeal the suspension. He is quoted in the article about the targeting call and suspension as saying, "It is what it is. They are going to err on the side of safety," Spack said.
That sounds to me like Coach is just moving forward.
Here is the link to the whole article: http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/football/spack-honors-tiller-with-a-redbird-victory/article_05e7f570-2831-5b0d-ab18-d97568b642d5.html
fourthandshort
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 9,785
cpacmel said:
Ok, now that's the last straw ... we need a new Head Coach !!!
Who's with me on this one ????
p.s. hey .. where did al the crickets suddenly come from ??
BallwinBird2012
Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2017
- Messages
- 318
FWIW, targeting was just called against an offensive player for LSU against Florida. WR throwing a block against a DB and used the crown of his helmet. Looks like it will stand and he will be ejected.
Virginia Redbird
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #30
After the call last night it looks like this may be an ongoing thing. I know teams get a reputation and the refs are fully aware of that. I hope that is not the case here but back to back weeks with this call? I will stand corrected though that I thought there had to be some type of helmet connection. Something about using the crown of the helmet. That was not the case last night as it was fully the defender's shoulder to the QB. They put the rule on the screen and I guess the head does not have to be involved...just be launched! I need to review the rule book closer I guess. Anyway I agree with the announcer last night. The guys only play a handful of games in their career. It is a shame to lose a full game for something that was not intended. Last week for certain I don't think it was intentional but that is where the game is at I guess.
RollBirds2002
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2017
- Messages
- 108
If the NCAA wanted to be serious about protecting players they would protect the players that go helmet to helmet on every down which is the linemen. There's nothing you can do short of abolishing the game to protect those guys, though.
If the NCAA cared so much about this, they'd get more involved by having league officials that review for targeting. There are HUGE discrepancies between conferences as to what targeting actually is. Did anyone watch the MSU v Michigan game last night? Check this one out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LplkA6bttI&feature=youtu.be&t=6657
https://youtu.be/8LplkA6bttI?t=6685
NO call... And the analysts hail it as a clean hit! This was WAY worse than either of the targeting calls against the Redbirds in the last two weeks. As Virginia Redbird emphasized, the calls against the Redbirds took both players out for almost an entire game since both occurred fairly early in the 3rd quarter. If the NCAA wants to make the game safer, they need to be the judge and jury and not leave it in the hands of 20+ different conferences' officials... Otherwise, we're just going to slowly kill a game that we all love. Fine, CTE is real... But it's more common and more consequential for linemen, NOT ball carriers in the open field who see the d-man coming...
Lastly... The word "targeting" implies intent, does it not? Therefore, when deciding whether or not you are going to take a kid out of the game for up to 4 quarters, you'd best be taking that into consideration. Maybe start with level 1 or 2 targeting like flagrant fouls in basketball. Two level 1 targeting calls and you're ejected. A single level 2 targeting and you're out through the next complete half. If both players drop their heads, then either no penalty or double ejection because you have to protect both players and not just the ball carrier. The NHL is smart enough to take this into consideration (sudden change in posture changing principal point of contact) so why aren't other sports/leagues smart enough to see this in reviews? I'm sure some people will tell me I'm wrong here so I'll end with this:
If the NCAA cared so much about this, they'd get more involved by having league officials that review for targeting. There are HUGE discrepancies between conferences as to what targeting actually is. Did anyone watch the MSU v Michigan game last night? Check this one out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LplkA6bttI&feature=youtu.be&t=6657
https://youtu.be/8LplkA6bttI?t=6685
NO call... And the analysts hail it as a clean hit! This was WAY worse than either of the targeting calls against the Redbirds in the last two weeks. As Virginia Redbird emphasized, the calls against the Redbirds took both players out for almost an entire game since both occurred fairly early in the 3rd quarter. If the NCAA wants to make the game safer, they need to be the judge and jury and not leave it in the hands of 20+ different conferences' officials... Otherwise, we're just going to slowly kill a game that we all love. Fine, CTE is real... But it's more common and more consequential for linemen, NOT ball carriers in the open field who see the d-man coming...
Lastly... The word "targeting" implies intent, does it not? Therefore, when deciding whether or not you are going to take a kid out of the game for up to 4 quarters, you'd best be taking that into consideration. Maybe start with level 1 or 2 targeting like flagrant fouls in basketball. Two level 1 targeting calls and you're ejected. A single level 2 targeting and you're out through the next complete half. If both players drop their heads, then either no penalty or double ejection because you have to protect both players and not just the ball carrier. The NHL is smart enough to take this into consideration (sudden change in posture changing principal point of contact) so why aren't other sports/leagues smart enough to see this in reviews? I'm sure some people will tell me I'm wrong here so I'll end with this:
Seeing Red
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2017
- Messages
- 108
:text-+1: Great post RollBirds, right on the money!
Virginia Redbird
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #33
I could not agree more Rollsbird! Just looking for consistency in the call and the penalty. Right now it is all over the place and it seems nobody really has a clue what the call or penalty should be. Make the game as safe as possible but realize the game frankly is not safe. It was never safe and never will be. Just eliminate those players that are intentionally trying to hurt somebody. The way the system is going about it now is just not well done.
Seeing Red
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2017
- Messages
- 108
Even the NAU broadcasters (who were excellent and did their opposing team homework) and sideline reporter thought it was a questionable and tough call. They did not agree with the severity of the rule and ejecting the player for what amounts to a full game when they only play 11 or 12 and sometimes more if playoffs are in the picture. Thought the NAU broadcasters had a good idea of maybe penalizing them 30 yards or something. Both targeting calls over the last two weeks were not intentional and there has to be varying degrees of the penalty, perhaps like the facemask penalty. Football players are focused on making plays not trying to get penalties.
fourthandshort
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 9,785
If their QB doesn't start to fall backward and duck, it is straight up clean hit with shoulder pads.
Another rediculous call after review !!
In both targeting calls the last 2 weeks, the only reason there was even a review was because the offensive player adjusted their body right before contact. Even allowing for that, they were both weak calls. But how on earth is the defensive player going full speed supposed to adjust in that millisecond to the offensive player's adjustment.
Someone said it above .. you have a chance to review the play .. find the guys trying to hurt someone with TRUE "targeting and/or "launching", and if the offensive player exposes themselves .. do NOT punish the defender.
Note, 1 game suspensions in football are pretty siginifcant relative to 11 or 12 game season. Short of stopping these nonsensical and inconsistent interpretations of the targeting/launching rules, NCAA MUST adjust ruling for "incidental" targeting and remove the subsequent partial game suspension - meaning, if offensive player exposed themselves last second, and defensive player had no time to adjust .. that would be "incidental", and the should remove the subsequent game suspension.
Love the rule, hate the inconsistent interpretations of it. You have chances to reveiw in game abd after game .. NCAA needs to get this right !!!
Another rediculous call after review !!
In both targeting calls the last 2 weeks, the only reason there was even a review was because the offensive player adjusted their body right before contact. Even allowing for that, they were both weak calls. But how on earth is the defensive player going full speed supposed to adjust in that millisecond to the offensive player's adjustment.
Someone said it above .. you have a chance to review the play .. find the guys trying to hurt someone with TRUE "targeting and/or "launching", and if the offensive player exposes themselves .. do NOT punish the defender.
Note, 1 game suspensions in football are pretty siginifcant relative to 11 or 12 game season. Short of stopping these nonsensical and inconsistent interpretations of the targeting/launching rules, NCAA MUST adjust ruling for "incidental" targeting and remove the subsequent partial game suspension - meaning, if offensive player exposed themselves last second, and defensive player had no time to adjust .. that would be "incidental", and the should remove the subsequent game suspension.
Love the rule, hate the inconsistent interpretations of it. You have chances to reveiw in game abd after game .. NCAA needs to get this right !!!
Not from our game, but this "hit" from the Northwestern Penn State game Saturday morning was also ruled targeting. To me, this NU player was clearly trying to avoid helmet contact by contorting his body. The heaviest blow comes from his back.
https://www.landof10.com/northweste...western-football-targeting-ejected-penn-state
https://www.landof10.com/northweste...western-football-targeting-ejected-penn-state
The rule is very poorly written, and certainly the spirit of the law seems to have been lost. I still don't understand how we came to accept that a scrambling runner with the ball, trying to gain yards can be defenseless.
There is going to be some changes made, no doubt. Football is trying to minimize liability, but they are going to lose fans if they don't figure this thing out.
It's good to see the media,, and Big 10 officials finally agreeing.
Check out this ludicrous call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaLfbgpdQDo
There is going to be some changes made, no doubt. Football is trying to minimize liability, but they are going to lose fans if they don't figure this thing out.
It's good to see the media,, and Big 10 officials finally agreeing.
Check out this ludicrous call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaLfbgpdQDo
Redbirdfan21
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 1,339
I heard an announcer (I think the NAU color guy last weekend, who was a former QB) state he feels an ejection is too extreme, because most of the time there is no intent with the targeting, and several times, if the player being hit didn't duck down to protect himself, the hit would not have been to the head/neck area. He recommended a more severe in game penalty, like a 30 yard unnecessary roughness penalty, etc