More bullshit targeting calls.

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

They're going to ruin this sport.

What's insane about it is how the refs don't even know what and when to call it. Anyone watching that should see it's a block on a guy with a shoulder. There's absolutely no way players should be held responsible simply for blocking a guy who wasn't looking.

 

[jjc2009]

I will look for video, but in the virginia tech game today, our S dove for an int, then the WR dove, hit the leg/butt of our safety, and they called it targeting. The defender never even attempted to initiate contact with the WR. Clearly it was overruled, but by far the most egregious targeting call I've ever seen attempted.

This is the first time I've ever heard a targeting call being reversed. There seems to be this weird unwritten rule that the review booth will rarely, if ever, overturn such a call, they don't want to encourage second-guessing by the guys on the field.

 

[Kaplony]

This is the first time I've ever heard a targeting call being reversed. There seems to be this weird unwritten rule that the review booth will rarely, if ever, overturn such a call, they don't want to encourage second-guessing by the guys on the field.

Clemson had one reversed against BC's Patrick Towles last year. I understand why at game speed the flag was thrown because at impact Towles head snapped back and it looked like an old style Jack Tatum Oakland Raiders attempted murder, but in slow mo it showed it was a hard hit to the chest and the head snapped back because of the shock, not impact.

 

[jjc2009]

Clemson had one reversed against BC's Patrick Towles last year. I understand why at game speed the flag was thrown because at impact Towles head snapped back and it looked like an old style Jack Tatum Oakland Raiders attempted murder, but in slow mo it showed it was a hard hit to the chest and the head snapped back because of the shock, not impact.

A well-executed form tackle leading with the shoulder and driving with the legs can do plenty of damage, but without the extra force of a helmet leading hit.

Really, its all about teaching proper tackling form. At some point a while back, players were taught to make the kill shot, lead with the head and launch, which is dangerous to both the offensive and defensive player.

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

And they even reviewed that fucking call and didn't overturn it.
No targeting what so ever.
Going the same way as the play.
Text Book Hit

That had to be PAC 12 refs

 

[Kaplony]

A well-executed form tackle leading with the shoulder and driving with the legs can do plenty of damage, but without the extra force of a helmet leading hit.

Really, its all about teaching proper tackling form. At some point a while back, players were taught to make the kill shot, lead with the head and launch, which is dangerous to both the offensive and defensive player.

They don't make highlight reels or sportscast segments of form tackles.

 

[uncfan103]

"Targeting" implies there is some sort of malicious intent, which there pretty much never is. Most of the time they're calling the defender for hitting too hard or they're punishing the defender because the offensive guy lowered his head right before being hit.

This penalty is incorrectly called probably 90% of the time even with review and whoever thought this was a good idea should probably be struck in the balls with a shovel for every time a player has been unjustly ejected.

Not true. Intent isn't a factor when it comes to targeting. It depends who you hit and how/where you hit them. I agree that its dangerous because it rewards the offensive player for trying to be tough and get hit in the head, but I disagree that it's incorrectly called just because someone wasn't malicious.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Not true. Intent isn't a factor when it comes to targeting. It depends who you hit and how/where you hit them. I agree that its dangerous because it rewards the offensive player for trying to be tough and get hit in the head, but I disagree that it's incorrectly called just because someone wasn't malicious.

The rule is written so poorly that it actually can be.

"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet"

So the purpose of the tackle matters. If the official thinks the purpose of the tackle was NOT to make contact that went beyond a legal tackle, then it's not always targeting.

Essentially if there's not a clear case of helmet to helmet contact or a clear strike right to the head it can be all about intent.

Every once in awhile you do see clear instances of targeting, see below.

But mostly what's getting called is stuff like these two:

These two were likely called for a hit on a defenseless receiver, but the rule clearly states that it's only targeting if you hit a defenseless receiver in the head or neck or if you lower your head and lead with your helmet. Otherwise it's just a personal foul. Both of the above cases above were not targeting by rule (leading with shoulder into the chest of the offensive player) but both of the players above were ejected for targeting.

They need to either get rid of the rule, change the wording so it doesn't read like a 10 year old with down-syndrome wrote it, or get a committee to review all targeting penalties that has the power to fire any official who calls it incorrectly.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

The wording also creates a scenario of circular logic.

"Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Here's a scenario:

Ref: That's targeting.

Coach: Why?

Ref: He was making forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle.

Coach: What about that tackle was illegal?

Ref: I already told you, he was targeting him so it's illegal. What are you, retarded?

 

[Kaplony]

What's insane about it is how the refs don't even know what and when to call it. Anyone watching that should see it's a block on a guy with a shoulder. There's absolutely no way players should be held responsible simply for blocking a guy who wasn't looking.

From what I have gathered talking with a friend of mine who is a NCAA official they have been instructed that is there is any doubt whatsoever about targeting to throw the flag and let the replay booth get it right. It's easy to say "That clearly wasn't targeting" when you are watching even an at-speed replay because you are specifically looking at the hit while sitting still. Not so easy when you are running and having to look at several different things at once.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

From what I have gathered talking with a friend of mine who is a NCAA official they have been instructed that is there is any doubt whatsoever about targeting to throw the flag and let the replay booth get it right. It's easy to say "That clearly wasn't targeting" when you are watching even an at-speed replay because you are specifically looking at the hit while sitting still. Not so easy when you are running and having to look at several different things at once.

Except, they get it wrong on a consistent basis AFTER the review. Because the people in the review booth take the stance, "if we don't have conclusive evidence one way or another we're going to keep what was called". Or, like this play, they just completely get it wrong and apparently don't know the rules.

 

[Kaplony]

Except, they get it wrong on a consistent basis AFTER the review. Because the people in the review booth take the stance, "if we don't have conclusive evidence one way or another we're going to keep what was called". Or, like this play, they just completely get it wrong and apparently don't know the rules.

Can't help you in regards to the review booth, just passing what an on-field official told me they were instructed to do. Once it goes to the booth it's out of their hands.

 

[wazzu31]

We had one on our safety that they flagged for targeting. But the QB had to get carted off the field, and then when they restarted the game I think the refs forgot about it, cause no review, no ejection and no penalty.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Bump

 

[podsox]

Start throwing flags on offensive players lowering their head. The rule is a joke

 

[TigersBleaux]

That FSU one was pretty silly.

 

[cwalke3408]

FSU's Pugh ejected for targeting - ESPN Video

Add this to the list

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Cot damn! And they miss an obvious one in the Sakerlina/ La Tech game. Gamecock DB hits La Tech wr and The LT wr's helmet pops off ..... Nothing. No flag, no comment. It was helmet to helmet. This is the most inconsistent bullshit penalty ever.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

add Ohio St's Ward to the list

 

[fishinabarrel]

Are they EVER going to make this rule less ambiguous? Leaving up to the refs discretion is simply not working.