Targeting

[Codaxx]

So a Texas player got a targeting call last night. Upon review the call "stands". I am not sure I have ever seen that. You are kicking a player out of a game and for the 1st half of the next and it is done on a call you can't confirm. That seems like BS. I think the whole rule is stupid, but isn't this a call that should be overruled unless there is clear evidence of targeting?

 

[outofyourmind]

Yes

 

[WizardHawk]

If you are going to have a rule like this where a player can be penalized into another game and there is absolutely no process for undoing that next game first half suspension then by all means it should be clear at the time. And it should be reviewed by a central body like the NFL does because trusting it to some conference official part time employee hack will always work out badly.

 

[Across The Field]

Maybe the Texas players should stop targeting others.

 

[Wild Turkey]

If a player gets called for targeting in the second half of a post season game then we should just publically execute them on the field as punishment.

 

[Codaxx]

Maybe the Texas players should stop targeting others.

It's not about that. You can still give 15 yard penalty for unnecessary roughness and not throw a player out. If you can not confirm it was targeting in the booth with slow motion, you shouldn't kick players out of a game.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

The OP was questioning the process about using the words "STANDS" vs "CONFIRMED"
Saying a call STANDS is admitting that replay cannot conclusively confirm or over-rule the call on the field.

If a player is going to be ejected from the game and at least 50% of the next game, the standard should be "CONFIRMED." only for that portion of the process.

It is a big deal to eject a player for almost 2 full games if the targeting happens in a 1st quarter.
The officials should be 100% certain before they do it. An inconclusive replay is a bit unfair to rest upon.

The offense will still get 15 yards and an automatic first down regardless, but the player will be able to stay in.

 

[Across The Field]

It's not about that. You can still give 15 yard penalty for unnecessary roughness and not throw a player out. If you can not confirm it was targeting in the booth with slow motion, you shouldn't kick players out of a game.

But what's the point in having a targeting rule if officials can't use it flippantly and without consequence?

 

[Codaxx]

But what's the point in having a targeting rule if officials can't use it flippantly and without consequence?

Problem is it's a bad rule. Just too hard to call on the field. I have always supported getting rid of it and replacing it with the rugby wrap rule instead. This just annoyed me, because the booth could not confirm it. Given the harshness of the rule, you would think without clear evidence officials would give the defender the benefit of the doubt

 

[gobigred]

The OP was questioning the process about using the words "STANDS" vs "CONFIRMED"
Saying a call STANDS is admitting that replay cannot conclusively confirm or over-rule the call on the field.

If a player is going to be ejected from the game and at least 50% of the next game, the standard should be "CONFIRMED." only for that portion of the process.

It is a big deal to eject a player for almost 2 full games if the targeting happens in a 1st quarter.
The officials should be 100% certain before they do it. An inconclusive replay is a bit unfair to rest upon.

The offense will still get 15 yards and an automatic first down regardless, but the player will be able to stay in.

No. If it happens in 1st half they are just out rest of that game. If it’s in 2nd half it’s rest of that 2nd half and 1st half of next game. It’s less than a full game not almost 2 full games.

 

[NolePride]

Problem is it's a bad rule. Just too hard to call on the field. I have always supported getting rid of it and replacing it with the rugby wrap rule instead. This just annoyed me, because the booth could not confirm it. Given the harshness of the rule, you would think without clear evidence officials would give the defender the benefit of the doubt

Just let the booth make the call and take it out of the officials hands altogether.

They just buzz the officials to halt the game for time to view it a few times and then make the
call.

 

[Across The Field]

Problem is it's a bad rule. Just too hard to call on the field. I have always supported getting rid of it and replacing it with the rugby wrap rule instead. This just annoyed me, because the booth could not confirm it. Given the harshness of the rule, you would think without clear evidence officials would give the defender the benefit of the doubt

Dude I'm being sarcastic. I've long hated that rule.