This was called Targeting on the field this week.

[ckhokie]

 

[outofyourmind]

Did the review overturn it??

 

[ckhokie]

Thank god they did, but the flag was thrown by a ref <10 yards from the play.

We're moving from any hard hit being called targeting, to the assumption that any contact is targeting, and it's ruining the game. How easy is it for refs, after making a terrible call to say there wasn't indisputable evidence to overturn? In most cases, I feel like refs don't want to admit they made the wrong call.

 

[ckhokie]

If the DB isn't even attempting to initiate contact with the WR, how can a flag even be thrown for targeting?

 

[outofyourmind]

Well, maybe they just don't want to miss that kind of call and know that it now gets a review.
Anytime a helmet comes off, on a hit, I think a flag is going to be thrown and sorted out later.

There was a perfect textbook hit made by an Oklahoma player that was called targeting in the Tulane game.
It was even reviewed and not reversed, when obviously it wasn't. Go figure.

 

[outofyourmind]

If the DB isn't even attempting to initiate contact with the WR, how can a flag even be thrown for targeting?

I thought that intent was taken out of the decision and only result was considered. Don't know.
The one you showed looked pretty cut and dry that both players were going for the ball and it wasn't targeting in any way shape or form. I don't have an answer.

 

[huskers1217]

I think they don't want to miss a targeting call. So anything close is called hoping replay bails them out


Usually replay doesn't look at it

 

[Across The Field]

I've said it before - if a ref throws a flag and calls targeting only for it to be reversed after review, the ref should serve a suspension. Maybe that'll make them a little less trigger happy.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

I think they don't want to miss a targeting call. So anything close is called hoping replay bails them out


Usually replay doesn't look at it

Wow, that'd piss me off

I've said it before - if a ref throws a flag and calls targeting only for it to be reversed after review, the ref should serve a suspension. Maybe that'll make them a little less trigger happy.

That seems pretty dangerous. Refs need to be in the moment, not thinking about a possible suspension in the back of their mind. Now if it continually happens with one guy, I'd have no problem.

 

[Goldbug]

Maybe we should just take the helmets off the players and look for blood when there is supposedly a targeting call? What do the refs think face masks and space-age materials in the helmets are for anyway? It's called football. Part of the game is getting your head knocked around. Egregious hits are obvious. Everything else is just ticky-tacky calls that take away from the game.

 

[it'sHuskers4me]

Guy was clearly targeting the crown of the field.

 

[ckhokie]

"Targeting. Defense. #25's ass. #25's ass has been disqualified."

 

[7Samurai13]

This might actually be worse than the targeting call in the 2015 Michigan vs Michigan State game that was somehow upheld.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.

It's a crummy situation all around. Plenty of evidence to link hits to the head with CTE/brain damage, but there's still millions of dollars to be made playing football. So, we have these half-hearted measures that might originate with good intent but are difficult to execute IRL and can be interpreted any number of ways by any given Ref.

 

[Wazmankg]

If it was overturned, what's the problem? Targeting is an automatic replay review and an ejection if confirmed, right?

I could see how a ref might see that as targeting in real time, on the field, depending upon his view. The defender's arms weren't extended or reaching for the ball as if he was trying to catch it, as the receiver's were. From behind where the defender was coming from, that probably did look like he launched himself going for the hit.

 

[7Samurai13]

If it was overturned, what's the problem? Targeting is an automatic replay review and an ejection if confirmed, right?

I could see how a ref might see that as targeting in real time, on the field, depending upon his view. The defender's arms weren't extended or reaching for the ball as if he was trying to catch it, as the receiver's were. From behind where the defender was coming from, that probably did look like he launched himself going for the hit.

I think the penalty still stands even if the targeting is reversed.

 

[Cobrabit]

I think the penalty still stands even if the targeting is reversed.

That's what I was thinking when I saw that play live, but evidently they can reverse the whole penalty as well compared to years past. The next play was 2nd and 10.

 

[7Samurai13]

That's what I was thinking when I saw that play live, but evidently they can reverse the whole penalty as well compared to years past. The next play was 2nd and 10.

You're wrong. How I know you are wrong is because erasing the penalty is logically correct and the NCAA does nothing that is logically correct.

 

[Cobrabit]

You're wrong. How I know you are wrong is because erasing the penalty is logically correct and the NCAA does nothing that is logically correct.

Ha. Well at least they ignored it for this play because I was livid seeing it live and thinking that the penalty yardage and 1st down would've stood regardless when targeting was going to be overturned. However, I still thought they'd screw us even more by upholding the penalty and ejection, but surprised as hell when they negated the whole thing.