Targeting? What say ye?

[KnightAndDay]

Put questionable calls in this thread.

That's a late hit, not targeting. He hit him shoulder to shoulder.

 

[KnightAndDay]

Here are our two from yesterday. First one is iffy, but I sort of understand it. It looked bad in real time because the helmet flew off (even though it was because it wasn't tightened, and the contact was to the upper chest). And it was close enough that you may not be able to overturn the initial call.

The second one just blows my mind. It seems to me to be an ordinary diving tackle where the receiver fell into our player. It was the worst upheld targeting call that I can remember. It got a hearty and deserving "bull shit" from our fans.

Both are bullshit.

1st one was helmet to chest. His helmet never made contact w/ the QB's head/neck area.

2nd one I don't really need to go into.

 

[Jakology]

I've seen plenty of bullshit Targeting calls. I hate the rule, because it gets people ejected for no reason. Most I've seen have been in traffic where the defender has no choice but to lay out and make a play on the ball. The safeties get the worst of this rule, because they HAVE to do what they do to jar the ball lose. It's not targeting. It's a great defensive play.

 

[theboardref]

Targeting is a bs SUBJECTIVE call, not just saying this because it is an LSU player. What person A feels should be called person B may not and visa versa. It is a personal opinion, and these officials should not be asked to make a major decision involving an ejection due to an opinion.

 

[Across The Field]

One big hit can make you the number one pick in the draft. Four years of solid tackling doesn't move the needle?

Really? I've never seen a guy make one big hit on someone and get the #1 pick out of it. And before you say Clowney, his hit on that michigan fool was actually a really, really good tackle.

 

[hockey878]

Here is the ref's BS explanation regarding the Wisconsin plays:

Troy vs. Wisconsin: Referee explains ejections of Leon Jacobs, Derrick Tindal

Pool reporter question: Do you factor that the receiver is a moving target and the play is happening so fast?

Answer: No.

Pool reporter question: Any benefit of the doubt for the defensive player?

Answer: No.

Pool reporter question: Would you say the benefit of the doubt goes to the offensive player?

Answer: The defensive player, when we have a defenseless player, can not target to the head or neck area.

Pool reporter question: If an offensive player ducks his head, like in the case of the second play, when he's falling to the ground and ducking his head, does that make a difference?

Answer: He's a defenseless player. If there's contact to the head or neck area, we have a targeting.

Pool reporter question: Was the second play a forearm? Any mention of that?

Answer: When you talk about targeting, helmet, forearm, shoulder, anything from that perspective that targets into the head or neck area, it's a foul. So from replay's perspective, they just needed to make sure that there's forcible contact to the head or neck area with a shoulder, forearm or head. To tell you which one it was, I can't tell you that, other than they confirmed that foul.

Pool reporter question: Replay could have said ... (question interrupted)

Answer: If there would not have been contact to the head or neck area, we would have reversed both scenarios.

Pool reporter question: The ejection wouldn't have stood, but the targeting penalty wouldn't have stood, either?

Answer: Nope, no penalty. And that's why I made mention of the quarterback earlier. If we would have had, per se, if we would have deemed it was roughing the passer, we would have said, ‘personal foul, roughing the passer, with targeting.' So then, if the targeting goes away, we still have the roughing the passer foul we would enforce. In the play on the wide receiver, you could potentially have pass interference, with targeting. We're not going to review the foul for (defensive pass interference), we're not going to remove the foul for roughing the passer, but the targeting component of it is reviewed.

 

[hockey878]

So essentially if you are a WR and run your head into a defender its a 15 yard penalty on the defense

 

[CCF151]

So essentially if you are a WR and run your head into a defender its a 15 yard penalty on the defense

Basically, if you're a defender, go back to basics. Form tackle and none of these would be targeting.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I just wish it had knocked some sense into JJ. If you guys are going to play dirty then take the QB out and let's see what our backup can do (can't be worse).

 

[hockey878]

Basically, if you're a defender, go back to basics. Form tackle and none of these would be targeting.

Tindal hit that WR at waist level. Do we really believe he was "targeting" the head? The WR ducked his head into the hit that was coming, that is not the DB's fault and is utter bullshit

 

[CCF151]

Tindal hit that WR at waist level. Do we really believe he was "targeting" the head? The WR ducked his head into the hit that was coming, that is not the DB's fault and is utter bullshit

And if he had his arms out to form tackle the forearm wouldn't have been in position to hit the WR in the head...no targeting.

 

[fordman84]

Everyone knows that you target players with your ear-hole.

 

[theboardref]

Why wasn't this targeting? He looked pretty damn defenseless to me. Are blindsides in a special category? This is more deserving of an ejection than half of the players that get ejected.

 

[7Samurai13]

Why wasn't this targeting? He looked pretty damn defenseless to me. Are blindsides in a special category? This is more deserving of an ejection than half of the players that get ejected.

No helmet to helmet, didn't launch, didn't lead with his helmet, he didn't even extend his arms after the hit. A player not looking where he is going doesn't equal a defenseless player.

 

[GoldRusher]

Less time making stupid rules and more time developing better\safer equipment. Aka more Nike, less NCAA.

 

[Tharvot]

Going toward the neck/head will get you a flag erytime.

GUILTY.

Yup, and he left his feet. Gonna get a flag every time.

 

[Tharvot]

Here are our two from yesterday. First one is iffy, but I sort of understand it. It looked bad in real time because the helmet flew off (even though it was because it wasn't tightened, and the contact was to the upper chest). And it was close enough that you may not be able to overturn the initial call.

The second one just blows my mind. It seems to me to be an ordinary diving tackle where the receiver fell into our player. It was the worst upheld targeting call that I can remember. It got a hearty and deserving "bull shit" from our fans.

Both were bad calls IMO

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

This is the shittiest rule in all of football. JFC!!

 

[ckhokie]

Please wait until I can find video a targeting call in this VT game

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

I just saw a kid for Va Tech get fucking ejected for playing football. It's so freaking subjective too and there's never any consistency with the calls. This is such a pussy rule.