targeting penalty

[bbirish73]

This penalty is ridiculous. What does kicking the player out of the game and suspending the player for a half have to do with player safety? It is a pure judgement call by the official and it is wrong. I'm okay with a 15 yard penalty but that is it. The most ridiculous targeting penalty I saw was with a Michigan game. Michigan player was seemly pushed into a player that was down and his helmet made contact with the other player's helmet. Boom, player from Michigan called for targeting and kicked out of the game. I don't know how the hell you could throw out a player for that. Stupid Stupid NCAA.

 

[idseer]

This penalty is ridiculous. What does kicking the player out of the game and suspending the player for a half have to do with player safety? It is a pure judgement call by the official and it is wrong. I'm okay with a 15 yard penalty but that is it. The most ridiculous targeting penalty I saw was with a Michigan game. Michigan player was seemly pushed into a player that was down and his helmet made contact with the other player's helmet. Boom, player from Michigan called for targeting and kicked out of the game. I don't know how the hell you could throw out a player for that. Stupid Stupid NCAA.

i think what it has to do with safety is a player who is aware they might be removed/suspended will tend to be more cautious when they are about to clash with another player. surely you are aware of the recent findings et all concerning football concussions? so they are attempting to lessen these head injuries by being overly cautious. makes perfect sense. but i do agree with what you say about the penalties for contact that wasn't even a player's fault (being pushed into another player etc).

having said that, i think that particular call saturday was pretty poor.

 

[jjc2009]

This penalty is ridiculous. What does kicking the player out of the game and suspending the player for a half have to do with player safety? It is a pure judgement call by the official and it is wrong. I'm okay with a 15 yard penalty but that is it. The most ridiculous targeting penalty I saw was with a Michigan game. Michigan player was seemly pushed into a player that was down and his helmet made contact with the other player's helmet. Boom, player from Michigan called for targeting and kicked out of the game. I don't know how the hell you could throw out a player for that. Stupid Stupid NCAA.

The disqualification is to encourage players (and coaches who don't want to lose starters) to tackle properly. I think it should be for the contest at hand, a second half violation knocks a player out for the first half the next game is a little over the top in my opinion, but the concussion epidemic is an existential threat to the sport, so its a lot of security theater.

I think the rule should work to eliminate head-hunting. Guys have been taught for years to launch at another player, especially when they are unable to protect against it, ie going up for a pass, to either "take em out" or disrupt the play. I am a big advocate of form tackling, from youth levels up through the pros.

Where the rule fails is there are some situations where it is virtually impossible to avoid a helmet to helmet collision. I think Shumate's play is a perfect example. Shumate comes in shoulder-first, there is no way at normal speed, he is going to be able to know in advance which way the player's head will turn so as to avoid making contact with it. In fact, the only way to avoid such a collision in that situation is to avoid hitting him altogether. So, what, we're just supposed to concede the touchdown now? Nobody's reflexes are that good, and nobody has the foresight to know which way a receiver will come down, and have time to adjust his own body accordingly.

But of course, there is obviously an edict from conferences and the NCAA, err on the side of throwing the flag. And it seems the replay booth also has an edict to rubber stamp it. I've seen about 4-5 highly questionable targeting calls this year (besides Shumate's) and the replay booth has spent all of 5 seconds reviewing before confirming. I don't think there is any serious effort to overturn such calls.

The rule needs to change to account for circumstances where it is unavoidable. Kinda like incidental contact on PI calls. They can still go after the "intentional" plays ie where guys leave their feet and launch, but some contact is simply unavoidable and the penalty too severe when there is clearly no intent.

 

[jjc2009]

i think what it has to do with safety is a player who is aware they might be removed/suspended will tend to be more cautious when they are about to clash with another player. surely you are aware of the recent findings et all concerning football concussions? so they are attempting to lessen these head injuries by being overly cautious. makes perfect sense. but i do agree with what you say about the penalties for contact that wasn't even a player's fault (being pushed into another player etc).

having said that, i think that particular call saturday was pretty poor.

I think the irony in the concussion cases is that the worst sufferers are the defensive players. In other words, they're hurting themselves more than the other guy. Look at some of the higher profile cases, Junior Seau, Dave Duerson, etc. These were the guys dishing out the punishment, not vice versa. I think proper tackling, while less sexy (although done right can be just as hard a hit), will protect the players and, actually prevents a lot of pinball plays when they don't wrap up and gain an extra 10 yards.

I'm also concerned that now some defensive players will be too timid to make a hit and will, instead take on a more violent hit themselves. Was always taught to go full speed all the time in the game otherwise you'll get injured (twisted into a pretezel).

 

[KnuteRoc]

I think the penalty precipitated from the notion of protecting players moreso than any clear indication Shumate was actually 'targetting'. I didn't see Kelly's expression change which made me think he understood it the same way. I thought I saw him talking to someone on the sideline but I think it was Kizer, I don't recall him going to talk to Shumate. Was this play related to Grimes' getting in the ear of the ref?

On the other note about defensive players... what about the equipment itself? There probably isn't sufficient data but I'm curious how the concussion/injury rate compares to the leather-helmet era versus the current era? I'm of the opinion that the helmet itself has led to some of the worst type of hits. While the safety factor of the helmet can't be ignored, you now also have more brutal hits because of that helmet protection. I know I wouldn't be leading with my head if I was wearing leather.