Pat Fitzgerald Gives a Solution to New Targeting Rule
- Thread starter RTR91
- Start date
My first thought was "No. I don't want my football turning into soccer". Then I thought about how much the game has changed in the last few years, and how soft it is now. If they must have this stupid targeting rule, then maybe yellow cards are a good idea.
I really like this idea. It doesn't have to be a "yellow card", per se, but the idea of an official warning with potential repercussions - as opposed to an instant ejection for what may have very well been an incidental, unintentional, high hit - could very well be an effective way to handle the new targeting rule in order to prevent ejections from getting out of hand.
We actually already have this, or at least a precedent for this - in a way - in college football already: the sideline warning. The referee officially warns the team of its sideline interference and the team knows that the next time it happens there will be a penalty.
In regards to the targeting rule, the referee gives an official warning to the player who commits a foul deemed by the official(s) to be in violation of the targeting rule and the team - both the coaches and players - know that if that player commits that foul again within a certain amount of time then that player will be ejected. The initial hit, or foul, is still a 15 yard penalty. The review process - after the game - gives the officials and/or conferences the ability to either upgrade the severity of the foul to include loss of playing time for that player if the foul is deemed to be egregious or, if it is deemed that the official(s) made a mistake, to even remove the "yellow card" warning from the player.
I would prefer to treat the warning, or "yellow card", process a little more like soccer, though, in regards to timing or aggregation of the warnings. Rather than have the warning stick with the player for the rest of the season, perhaps it only sticks with them through the next game - as a yellow card usually does in soccer. You could also add a "repeat violator" clause - to prevent the player(s) from being able to commit the foul once every other game - that makes any player's violation of the targeting rule an automatic ejection after their third or fourth warning of the season. This would prevent players from being able to be reckless until they get a warning, then take it easy for a game until the warning "expires", and then resume their reckless play. This also would prevent, for example, the situation where a player who made a mistake and committed this foul in the first or second game of the season ends up missing 58 minutes of their bowl game because their adrenaline got the best of them - or the official(s) "saw" the play incorrectly - and their second violation comes 9 or 10 games after the first one.
I also like the idea of some sort of fine or penalty for schools and/or coaches whose players accumulate too many warnings over a season, clearly putting the responsibility for proper coaching - along with the penalties for failing to do so - where it belongs: with the schools and coaches.
We actually already have this, or at least a precedent for this - in a way - in college football already: the sideline warning. The referee officially warns the team of its sideline interference and the team knows that the next time it happens there will be a penalty.
In regards to the targeting rule, the referee gives an official warning to the player who commits a foul deemed by the official(s) to be in violation of the targeting rule and the team - both the coaches and players - know that if that player commits that foul again within a certain amount of time then that player will be ejected. The initial hit, or foul, is still a 15 yard penalty. The review process - after the game - gives the officials and/or conferences the ability to either upgrade the severity of the foul to include loss of playing time for that player if the foul is deemed to be egregious or, if it is deemed that the official(s) made a mistake, to even remove the "yellow card" warning from the player.
I would prefer to treat the warning, or "yellow card", process a little more like soccer, though, in regards to timing or aggregation of the warnings. Rather than have the warning stick with the player for the rest of the season, perhaps it only sticks with them through the next game - as a yellow card usually does in soccer. You could also add a "repeat violator" clause - to prevent the player(s) from being able to commit the foul once every other game - that makes any player's violation of the targeting rule an automatic ejection after their third or fourth warning of the season. This would prevent players from being able to be reckless until they get a warning, then take it easy for a game until the warning "expires", and then resume their reckless play. This also would prevent, for example, the situation where a player who made a mistake and committed this foul in the first or second game of the season ends up missing 58 minutes of their bowl game because their adrenaline got the best of them - or the official(s) "saw" the play incorrectly - and their second violation comes 9 or 10 games after the first one.
I also like the idea of some sort of fine or penalty for schools and/or coaches whose players accumulate too many warnings over a season, clearly putting the responsibility for proper coaching - along with the penalties for failing to do so - where it belongs: with the schools and coaches.
The only way it would be like soccer would be the yellow card, and Fitz is just using that as an analogy.
Sideline warnings were what came to my mind, as well. I think the warning would be the best thing for this rule, other than getting rid of it. Like you said, the warning can't last over the season though. Needs to be for one game.
Another note...
While I don't like the current targeting rule, unlike some others on this board and elsewhere I do not believe that we do not necessarily need a targeting rule. I just believe that the current rule, as implemented, could have a lot of unintended consequences.
This warning approach could potentially be a solution for what I see as the biggest problem with the targeting rule: ambiguity in definition and, thereby, application. Any time you have different groups of officials looking at a particular play - especially looking at video of the play after the fact - disagreeing on whether or not that play is in violation of a particular rule then that rule is obviously not properly defined. By being able to simply give a player an official warning for their first violation, this gives the officials a little room for error in calling the foul but also gives the player a chance to either escape an automatic ejection in the case of a bad call and/or correct their style of play to be less reckless.
Even if this or a similar solution were to be adopted, however, I do believe that we need clearer definitions for various terms and rules and their application in regards to what is and is not a foul or a violation of a specific rule. We - everyone from the fans to the coaches to the players to the officials - need to know the difference between "spearing", "leading with the [crown of the] helmet", where the front of the helmet stops and the "crown" of the helmet starts, a proper tackle where the helmet just happens to make contact first, a hit where the defender comes in high and makes initial contact at or above the neck or shoulders, a hit where the defender comes in at a proper level and makes initial contact in the body but then makes secondary contact above the shoulders, a hit where the defender comes in at a proper level but the ball carrier slips or lowers their head / body causing the defender to make first contact at or above the shoulders, etc.
While I don't like the current targeting rule, unlike some others on this board and elsewhere I do not believe that we do not necessarily need a targeting rule. I just believe that the current rule, as implemented, could have a lot of unintended consequences.
This warning approach could potentially be a solution for what I see as the biggest problem with the targeting rule: ambiguity in definition and, thereby, application. Any time you have different groups of officials looking at a particular play - especially looking at video of the play after the fact - disagreeing on whether or not that play is in violation of a particular rule then that rule is obviously not properly defined. By being able to simply give a player an official warning for their first violation, this gives the officials a little room for error in calling the foul but also gives the player a chance to either escape an automatic ejection in the case of a bad call and/or correct their style of play to be less reckless.
Even if this or a similar solution were to be adopted, however, I do believe that we need clearer definitions for various terms and rules and their application in regards to what is and is not a foul or a violation of a specific rule. We - everyone from the fans to the coaches to the players to the officials - need to know the difference between "spearing", "leading with the [crown of the] helmet", where the front of the helmet stops and the "crown" of the helmet starts, a proper tackle where the helmet just happens to make contact first, a hit where the defender comes in high and makes initial contact at or above the neck or shoulders, a hit where the defender comes in at a proper level and makes initial contact in the body but then makes secondary contact above the shoulders, a hit where the defender comes in at a proper level but the ball carrier slips or lowers their head / body causing the defender to make first contact at or above the shoulders, etc.
Definitely the best idea I've heard. I think it'd be difficult to have more than 1 warning before a single-game suspension, but I much prefer this option to any others I've heard bandied about. It also would allow for the hit to be reviewed after-the-fact to determine whether the "yellow card" should stand if it was a questionable call by the officials (although the 15yd penalty would obviously remain).
Our game has and will continue to evolve. It must evolve to improve long-term player safety, and I'm quite confident all of the sky-is-falling fears that football will become flag football is not going to happen. But, these young men need to be given the tools to help them play more safely, as well as keep the tackled players from being hurt. So if yellow cards or the like reduce helmet to helmet hits, then great. But, I see the flip side, where a player could take a little more risk in a helmet to helmet hit if they haven't had a yellow card in a few games.
I agree that player safety should always be a high priority, but this new targeting rule has the potential to change how the game is played. For instance, the big J. Clowney hit on the Michigan running back is being paraded out there as an example of a play where half the refs say they would have ejected Clowney under the new rule. There is the first problem: half of the refs would throw him out, and half of the refs wouldn't throw him out. My biggest problem, though, is with the half who say they would have thrown Clowney out. JC made a great move and beat the offensive lineman like a rag doll. He almost got to the QB before he handed the ball off, which is why some of the refs are saying the RB was a "defenseless player." What are they asking of JC? Should he not have beaten the lineman so badly? Should he suddenly stop after beating the lineman and wait for the RB to receive the ball? JC is 6'6", so there was no way for him not to hit the RB up high when the RB was starting to duck when he saw JC coming. That was a great football play, and there is no way it should be penalized if you still want to call the game football.
Now, with that said, I can understand that guys don't need to take receivers heads off when they come over the middle. However, they should be allowed to hit them hard. What if they tackle them by the legs but that causes the receiver to be whipped to the ground violently? There shouldn't be a middle ground on rules that can have such a huge effect on a player and team. That is why so many people don't like the rule. I think everyone wants the players to be safe, but it should also be a free country where people who decide to play football can actually play football. No one is forced to go out there. It is a choice. They should continue to do the research and provide players and parents all of the information available. If they choose to participate, they should understand the dangers involved.
I have an even better solution..............................get rid of this stupid rule. They already have a targeting rule as well unnecessary roughness, etc. I don't want players to get hurt but football by nature is a violent sport and optional for one to sign up to play. If a player does target someone the refs already have the discretion to eject a player so why make one more stupid rule that will be subjectively enforced? Now, if there is a suspension for the officials who over zealously apply this rule (including fines and suspensions) I might be a little more agreeable to the rule, but until refs are "punished" for altering games on ignorant calls then football is doomed.
I played and coached many years. Around 1974 they outlawed below the waist blocking down field. People said football wouldn't be the same. In the 1980s, they outlawed backs blocking below the waist on def ends...the wishbone died in high school, but knee injuries went down. Shoulder tackling has gone the way of the dinasaur. Today, tackles are not made the way they were coached in the 50s with leather helmets. If some type rule is not passed, football will go the way of boxing. In the 1960s, neck injuries almost ended football. This too shall pass and the game moves on. Excuse the rambling, too many head shots with a Ridell suspension helmet back in the day.
Should I point out if the officials hadn't screwed up the Clowney hit would never have happened? (Sorry if that sounds like a recent trial argument). Can we eject the officials?
I'll start by saying that I think the targeting rule is a terrible idea and the "when in doubt, eject" is even worse. But I think this is a good idea except I think the "yellow card" should only carry over for 2-3 games instead of the whole season.
I don't think Vinnie should get kicked out for a game and suspended because 2 months prior he went in for the hit, the receiver ducked, and he hit him in the head. The NCAA will probably take enough heat after the season (due to some very questionable calls) and will make changes to the rule. Hopefully we aren't a team that gets the short end of the stick on one of these questionable calls.
I don't think Vinnie should get kicked out for a game and suspended because 2 months prior he went in for the hit, the receiver ducked, and he hit him in the head. The NCAA will probably take enough heat after the season (due to some very questionable calls) and will make changes to the rule. Hopefully we aren't a team that gets the short end of the stick on one of these questionable calls.
Selma, did you forget an emoticon or something? How did the refs screw up the Clowney hit?
I've heard some folks say they believe the replay officials will over turn plenty of calls to make sure the players aren't ejected. We'll see how that goes.
I believe the play before that hit happened was not called correctly(correct me if I am remember wrong) by the officials. If they indeed made the right call then potentially that hit never happens
Correct. South Carolina stopped Michigan on 4th and inches. The officials ruled a first down, though.
I remember fussing about that call and then - as soon as that poor Michigan back fumbled the ball - yelling "the ball never lies" in anticipation of the impending turnover "correcting" the officials' mistake. :biggrin2:
I've watched the replay of Quinton Dial'***** on Aaron Murray. I agree that the hit was helmet-to-helmet, but terming Murray a "defenseless" player and stating that he was somehow out of the play is utterly ridiculous. He was jogging toward the path of Clinton-Dix, looking directly at him, and was only about 7 or 8 yards away from where Clinton-Dix was tackled when he was hit. If Clinton-Dix cuts toward the center of the field just before Dial's block, Murray would have surely been obliged to make an attempt at tackling him.
The hit by Dial could be considered unnecessarily rough considering that it was administered by a defensive lineman on a QB and the fact that it was helmet-to-helmet probably should have brought about a penalty, but Murray's wearing a helmet and pads just like everyone else, he's got eyes (that weren't being used enough apparently), and he can take on a block or attempt to shed a block just like anyone else on the field.
The play before that INT, Ed Stinson goes down with an injury to his right knee. In the CBS broadcast, there's not a good view of what happened to him, but he was being blocked by both the left guard and left tackle. I wondered if perhaps he was chop-blocked or something else occurred that might have put Dial in a bit of a sour mood. Regardless, it doesn't excuse the manner of the block, but it could be an explanation of why it happened when it did.
If the QB doesn't want any contact, then he should not move to a position where he could be in on the tackle. If he has placed himself within actionable distance of the trajectory of the ball-carrier, then he should be as valid of a target for a block as anyone else in that area. While the officials might not extend the "defenseless" player qualification to a QB that is actively participating in the attempt to tackle a defensive back that just intercepted a pass, a defensive player that is blocking for that defensive back might just be unsure enough about what would result in a penalty that his ability to effectively block the QB might be jeopardized. This could allow the QB to make a TD-saving tackle.
I'm not so sure that any of these rules are really meant to protect "players". I think that they're meant to protect QBs only, who are the players that are primarily the most responsible for producing the outlandish statistics and unprecedented scores that also produce some of the highest ratings and revenue for ESPN and, by proxy, the NCAA. They're not going to the same extent to stop chop blocks or illegal cut blocks or anything that might result in an injury to the not-so-prized guys in the trenches. I'm surprised that they haven't retroactively ruled that Colt McCoy was defenseless and our defense shouldn't have been out there hitting the poor little guy and decided to give the shorthorns the 2009 BCSNC.
The hit by Dial could be considered unnecessarily rough considering that it was administered by a defensive lineman on a QB and the fact that it was helmet-to-helmet probably should have brought about a penalty, but Murray's wearing a helmet and pads just like everyone else, he's got eyes (that weren't being used enough apparently), and he can take on a block or attempt to shed a block just like anyone else on the field.
The play before that INT, Ed Stinson goes down with an injury to his right knee. In the CBS broadcast, there's not a good view of what happened to him, but he was being blocked by both the left guard and left tackle. I wondered if perhaps he was chop-blocked or something else occurred that might have put Dial in a bit of a sour mood. Regardless, it doesn't excuse the manner of the block, but it could be an explanation of why it happened when it did.
If the QB doesn't want any contact, then he should not move to a position where he could be in on the tackle. If he has placed himself within actionable distance of the trajectory of the ball-carrier, then he should be as valid of a target for a block as anyone else in that area. While the officials might not extend the "defenseless" player qualification to a QB that is actively participating in the attempt to tackle a defensive back that just intercepted a pass, a defensive player that is blocking for that defensive back might just be unsure enough about what would result in a penalty that his ability to effectively block the QB might be jeopardized. This could allow the QB to make a TD-saving tackle.
I'm not so sure that any of these rules are really meant to protect "players". I think that they're meant to protect QBs only, who are the players that are primarily the most responsible for producing the outlandish statistics and unprecedented scores that also produce some of the highest ratings and revenue for ESPN and, by proxy, the NCAA. They're not going to the same extent to stop chop blocks or illegal cut blocks or anything that might result in an injury to the not-so-prized guys in the trenches. I'm surprised that they haven't retroactively ruled that Colt McCoy was defenseless and our defense shouldn't have been out there hitting the poor little guy and decided to give the shorthorns the 2009 BCSNC.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
