Targeting: A Closer Look

[Codaxx]

When a guy leads with the shoulder and doesn't wrap up, that seems like a targeting call.

This is what I have argued for all along. Make the rule a wrap rule. Its ridiculous to try and ask a defender to adjust for falling, diving, or head ducking from a ball carrier. It is also ridiculous to try and lay this rule on officials. ND had one on the QB when he threw a pick that could have been called. Make it simple. If you dont attempt to wrap it is an illegal tackle. That is not subjective and it is a rule that defenders can reasonably adjust to.

 

[BTHOtu]

Personal foul. Unnecessary roughness.

No call

 

[Codaxx]

Personal foul. Unnecessary roughness.

No call

Kind of funny. A&M player hit a guy with his helmet that didnt change planes. He ducked his helmet to a Texas player. Texas hits a WR falling down with a shoulder to head. I think both are targeting, but A&M's is more egregious. Seems people are tryingto argue the result, not the technique. That is one of the problems with the rule. The penalty is generally enforced based on how "ugly" the hit is.

 

[romeo212000]

This is what I have argued for all along. Make the rule a wrap rule. Its ridiculous to try and ask a defender to adjust for falling, diving, or head ducking from a ball carrier. It is also ridiculous to try and lay this rule on officials. ND had one on the QB when he threw a pick that could have been called. Make it simple. If you dont attempt to wrap it is an illegal tackle. That is not subjective and it is a rule that defenders can reasonably adjust to.

True. And it would limit the launching regardless of whether they're leading with the helmet or not.

 

[Skerpokes]

This is what I have argued for all along. Make the rule a wrap rule. Its ridiculous to try and ask a defender to adjust for falling, diving, or head ducking from a ball carrier. It is also ridiculous to try and lay this rule on officials. ND had one on the QB when he threw a pick that could have been called. Make it simple. If you dont attempt to wrap it is an illegal tackle. That is not subjective and it is a rule that defenders can reasonably adjust to.

For what it's worth, in rugby it is illegal to tackle a player without wrapping up in the tackle. Not wrapping up a tackle results in a penalty and is called every time, no grey area. I would also argue that there are far fewer head injuries in rugby than in football because of this and tackling technique in general.

 

[Codaxx]

True. And it would limit the launching regardless of whether they're leading with the helmet or not.

It should, most importantly you have to make a rule that the defense can follow. Launch yourself and lead with your head and you hit him in the chest, it is a good hit. Now launch yourself 2/10th of a second later and hit him in the head, it is an ejection. Targeting is trying to penalize the result, not the root of the issue, which is poor form on a tackle.

 

[Codaxx]

For what it's worth, in rugby it is illegal to tackle a player without wrapping up in the tackle. Not wrapping up a tackle results in a penalty and is called every time, no grey area. I would also argue that there are far fewer head injuries in rugby than in football because of this and tackling technique in general.

Yes, I stole it from watching a game while in Australia. I thought it was a great rule and a simple solution, instead we have targeting

 

[7Samurai13]

Somebody say bullshit targeting call?

Number 35, second guy pushed in.

 

[Tomhusker]

I'd be fine with it all of they just eliminated the damn ejection part of the rule. It's like getting penalized three times for one infraction. 15 yards, ejected from the game, can't play half the next game.

Total bullshit.

 

[BTHOtu]

 

[7Samurai13]

Kind of funny. A&M player hit a guy with his helmet that didnt change planes. He ducked his helmet to a Texas player. Texas hits a WR falling down with a shoulder to head. I think both are targeting, but A&M's is more egregious. Seems people are tryingto argue the result, not the technique. That is one of the problems with the rule. The penalty is generally enforced based on how "ugly" the hit is.

I don't know which clips you were watching but a glancing blow to a helmet from a guy not trying to hit the Texas player vs the Texas player launching himself, causing a helmet to helmet hit. The Notre Dame hit was by far more egregious and there was no attempt for form. He was hunting for heads and he found one l. He even admitted it on Twitter and yet you still def me it. Those glasses you wear are mighty orange. And a do not like Notre Dame one bit.

 

[BTHOtu]

I don't know which clips you were watching but a glancing blow to a helmet from a guy not trying to hit the Texas player vs the Texas player launching himself, causing a helmet to helmet hit. The Notre Dame hit was by far more egregious and there was no attempt for form. He was hunting for heads and he found one l. He even admitted it on Twitter and yet you still def me it. Those glasses you wear are mighty orange. And a do not like Notre Dame one bit.

The A&M player was going after the Texas WR full speed and saw that the pass was incomplete and he was slowing down but not enough to avoid a collision which is why he lowered his shoulder and braced for impact. Yes helmets touched. By rule that can be targeting but it's subjective. Plus that was a couple of years before the targeting rule. Personal foul for unnecessary roughness. What made Aggie fans so mad is that it took them from 3rd and long to 1st and 10 with enough time to get into position to kick a field goal to win. 999/1,000 times that doesn't get called. It's not exclusive to UT or A&M, it's in every game almost every play.

The ND hit wasn't just an ugly hit. He blew up a defenseless receiver even when the other two DB's were slowing down and peeling off. Doesn't matter where his head was. This is the type of behavior that the targeting rule was for.

 

[BTHOtu]

I don't know which clips you were watching but a glancing blow to a helmet from a guy not trying to hit the Texas player vs the Texas player launching himself, causing a helmet to helmet hit. The Notre Dame hit was by far more egregious and there was no attempt for form. He was hunting for heads and he found one l. He even admitted it on Twitter and yet you still def me it. Those glasses you wear are mighty orange. And a do not like Notre Dame one bit.

The A&M player was going after the Texas WR full speed and saw that the pass was incomplete and he was slowing down but not enough to avoid a collision which is why he lowered his shoulder and braced for impact. Yes helmets touched. By rule that can be targeting but it's subjective. Plus that was a couple of years before the targeting rule. Personal foul for unnecessary roughness. What made Aggie fans so mad is that it took them from 3rd and long to 1st and 10 with enough time to get into position to kick a field goal to win. 999/1,000 times that doesn't get called. It's not exclusive to UT or A&M, it's in every game almost every play.

The ND hit wasn't just an ugly hit. He blew up a defenseless receiver even when the other two DB's were slowing down and peeling off. Doesn't matter where his head was. This is the type of behavior that the targeting rule was for.

 

[Codaxx]

I don't know which clips you were watching but a glancing blow to a helmet from a guy not trying to hit the Texas player vs the Texas player launching himself, causing a helmet to helmet hit. The Notre Dame hit was by far more egregious and there was no attempt for form. He was hunting for heads and he found one l. He even admitted it on Twitter and yet you still def me it. Those glasses you wear are mighty orange. And a do not like Notre Dame one bit.

The A&M clip the defender tries to use his helmet on a guy just running. Take look the head is tilting toward the WR, not away as you claim. He doesnt even try to use his shoulder. Granted, it was more of a weasel thing than a real hit. The Texas hit he leads with his shoulder on a WR the is falling to the ground. If he hit him 4 inches lower there is 0 debate on the hit. The A&M one is just stupid. That is the pt. Your response just confirms my idea that people react based on the result of the hit and not the intent or form of hit. There is 0 doubt in my mind that the helmet contact in the A&M clip was easily more avoidable, than in the Texas clip.

 

[Codaxx]

The A&M player was going after the Texas WR full speed and saw that the pass was incomplete and he was slowing down but not enough to avoid a collision which is why he lowered his shoulder and braced for impact. Yes helmets touched. By rule that can be targeting but it's subjective. Plus that was a couple of years before the targeting rule. Personal foul for unnecessary roughness. What made Aggie fans so mad is that it took them from 3rd and long to 1st and 10 with enough time to get into position to kick a field goal to win. 999/1,000 times that doesn't get called. It's not exclusive to UT or A&M, it's in every game almost every play.

The ND hit wasn't just an ugly hit. He blew up a defenseless receiver even when the other two DB's were slowing down and peeling off. Doesn't matter where his head was. This is the type of behavior that the targeting rule was for.

Penalties should be used to deter an action. I am not sure what action the safety should have taken, other than just allow a TD. That play is basically unavoidable with today's rules, unless you blow the whistle prior to the catch to avoid the opportunity of contact. That is why I have said outlaw shoulder tackles and require an attempt to wrap. Saying you cant hit him in a 6 inch area, while you are both moving at top speed is asinine. The fact that small helmet hits are OK and big ones are not, shows how ridiculous the rule is. If you are trying to get rid of helmet to helmet action you need to rule on all of them, not just the ones where people go "oooo"

 

[7Samurai13]

The A&M clip the defender tries to use his helmet on a guy just running. Take look the head is tilting toward the WR, not away as you claim. He doesnt even try to use his shoulder. Granted, it was more of a weasel thing than a real hit. The Texas hit he leads with his shoulder on a WR the is falling to the ground. If he hit him 4 inches lower there is 0 debate on the hit. The A&M one is just stupid. That is the pt. Your response just confirms my idea that people react based on the result of the hit and not the intent or form of hit. There is 0 doubt in my mind that the helmet contact in the A&M clip was easily more avoidable, than in the Texas clip.

Except the Texas player was not leading with his shoulder, he lead with his helmet.

 

[BTHOtu]

In the A&M clip, The Texas WR walked/jogged away under his own power after the hit and was unphased by it. the Helmet to Helmet hit was unintentional.

The irony about the whole thing is I remember in High School, 25 years ago, we were taught to blow people up. Coaches would show the "Sports Illustrated Greatest Hits" tape as a teaching tool.

 

[Codaxx]

Except the Texas player was not leading with his shoulder, he lead with his helmet.

He is bringing the right shoulder in that clip, unlike the A&M clip, because he clearly did not spear him. It is simple. If he hit him in the chest/shoulder it is legal. The difference between chest, shoulder, or head is mere inches at speeds of 25+ MPH. That is the problem with the rule. An illegal hit should be an illegal hit, whether it is in the head, chest, or back. Officiate the actions that leads to the contact that you are trying to outlaw, not the result of the contact.

by the way, I have never said that it was not targeting. I said the A&M was more egregious, because it was more avoidable. Pinpointing where you hit a ball carrier that is falling/ducking their head is much harder thing to do.

 

[Codaxx]

In the A&M clip, The Texas WR walked/jogged away under his own power after the hit and was unphased by it. the Helmet to Helmet hit was unintentional.

The irony about the whole thing is I remember in High School, 25 years ago, we were taught to blow people up. Coaches would show the "Sports Illustrated Greatest Hits" tape as a teaching tool.

You are proving my pt. The your argument is based on TExas guy jogging away from the hit, while ND player could not get up. You are essentially saying helmet to helmet is OK, as long as nobody gets hurt. That is a terrible rule, that obviously leads to big helmet to helmet hits.

 

[BTHOtu]

That clip from 2011 has been analysed and picked apart a million times. The A&M player was not intentionally targeting the WR. The collision was unavoidable. Both players heading towards each other at full speed until the incomplete pass. The DB dipped his shoulder because he saw it coming and was about to be run over. It looks like a glancing blow but the DB couldn't stop dead in his tracks. Neither could the WR. You see it all the time in every game. Usually ends with the players patting each other on the back of the helmet or talking trash or whatever and jogging back to the huddle. That time it ended with a personal foul. Now, had the DB kept going full speed and blown up the WR, it would look very similar to the ND targeting no call penalty. I will concede to understand why they didn't call it, because the WR had the ball in his hands, in the end zone. Knock the snot out of him and make him drop the ball. It would have been the difference between an incomplete pass and a TD by a fraction of a second. They teach these kids better techniques in hitting. That was targeting. This WR is lucky that he wasn't hurt too badly.