Targeting calls are out of control

skipster63

All-SEC
Nov 5, 2010
1,935
110
82
Buchanan Dam
Agreed. But IMO the rule enforcement is flawed. If not above the shoulders I think it should be penalized and charged as a personal foul. Another PF, regardless of type, would constitute ejection. Targeting calls are wussyfying the game.
Exactly if I lead with my head and hit his hip, might be a foul but isn't targeting. He hit him square in the chest.
 

CrimsonForce

Hall of Fame
Dec 20, 2012
12,757
94
67
I was reading some material from a college football rules analyst (@LegacyZebraCFB). Several POSSIBLE rule changes (most have to do with targeting) from the commissioners winter meeting:

-Sideline tablet use was discussed as well as coach to player communication. The first part may pass but will probably kill the second.
-Add "sliding ball carrier" to list of defenseless players. The will almost pass IMO. Will eliminate gray area for many targeting plays.
-Committee again suggest proposing change to ineligible downfield rule. Proposal failed last year, not sure how much more support it has now.
-Coordinators (these are college officiating coordinators for each D1 conference) want to eliminate all low blocks other than line play. Would probably only allow them immediately at snap between the tackles.
-Commissioners suggest making 2 unsportsmanlike fouls against a coach an automatic disqualification to match the penalty for players
-Big recommendation for targeting: Let replay official "add" a targeting foul if it was egregious and missed by the on field officials
-Second big one for targeting: Let replay look at the whole sequence and targeting action instead of only the contact itself
 

Intl.Aperture

All-American
Aug 12, 2015
3,681
23
57
Chesapeake, Virginia
-Second big one for targeting: Let replay look at the whole sequence and targeting action instead of only the contact itself
This is a big deal. CONTEXT. Context is everything. As someone who works in video, what happens right before or after a moment determines how important that moment truly is. Intention. Reaction. This is valuable information being provided to officials rather than seeing that, yes, 2 helmets DID collide. But why? Was it incidental? Intentional? I can't tell you how many times I've seen a receiver lower his head at the last second to reduce his overall target area, but in the process of lowering his head he brings it down to an area that was previously unguarded and is being targeted by the defender. The defender, who was originally aiming for the shoulder pads or chest, now makes contact with the helmet of the receiver because of the receivers last second decision, and yet the defender is the one who ends up with the targeting call.
 

Intl.Aperture

All-American
Aug 12, 2015
3,681
23
57
Chesapeake, Virginia
Now, this will add a lot of randomness to the calls. Some officials will be more lenient than others when considering the whole context. Don't know how you avoid that.
I agree. It has to be judgement at some point. But football has never been a A + B = C every time, type of sport, so I prefer it when the officiating reflects that. Some rules are black and white. False start. Targeting...by the nature of the word, (to me at least) shows intent. It definitely will add more subjectivity, but with the goal being safety without compromising the game I feel you have to make judgement calls when the situation isn't black and white and hopefully it's a good idea to let the rules give officials that ability on some rules.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
-Second big one for targeting: Let replay look at the whole sequence and targeting action instead of only the contact itself
Anyone else know this wasn't already the case? It explains why so many calls have been upheld, but I just figured the hit wasn't the only thing considered during a review.
 

Elefantman

Hall of Fame
Sep 18, 2007
5,935
3,855
187
R Can Saw
As it is now, they call targeting on the field, the replay official over turns the call, but you still get a 15 yard penalty. I like the idea of the on field official calling unsportsmanlike like conduct / unnecessary roughness when you hit a defenseless player, but let the replay official decide if it was targeting.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
As it is now, they call targeting on the field, the replay official over turns the call, but you still get a 15 yard penalty. I like the idea of the on field official calling unsportsmanlike like conduct / unnecessary roughness when you hit a defenseless player, but let the replay official decide if it was targeting.
The rule was changed to take away the 15 yard penalty if the only penalty was targeting. If the penalty was roughing the passer with targeting, the roughing the passer penalty would still be enforced. If it's only targeting, the penalty is not enforced.
 

CrimsonForce

Hall of Fame
Dec 20, 2012
12,757
94
67
As it is now, they call targeting on the field, the replay official over turns the call, but you still get a 15 yard penalty. I like the idea of the on field official calling unsportsmanlike like conduct / unnecessary roughness when you hit a defenseless player, but let the replay official decide if it was targeting.
I don' think that's the case. If the targeting call was overturned then so is the 15 yard penalty. I'm pretty sure that is how it was officiated this year..
 

Intl.Aperture

All-American
Aug 12, 2015
3,681
23
57
Chesapeake, Virginia
Anyone else know this wasn't already the case? It explains why so many calls have been upheld, but I just figured the hit wasn't the only thing considered during a review.
I knew somehow. They mentioned in a broadcast that the clips being played were the same ones being considered by the officials. The segments were literally milliseconds before and after contact. It was just isolating the collision at slow speeds. Slow-mo is good for clarifying the angle and area of the hit but a wider angle, full speed shot that shows how the whole play developed is probably a better method for judging targeting. With the speed that they play at when the video is slowed down to something like 120 fps it looks like the defenders head has been down and aimed at the receivers head for a half-hour. At full speed it's realized that it was only a fraction of a second.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,843
187
Anyone else know this wasn't already the case? It explains why so many calls have been upheld, but I just figured the hit wasn't the only thing considered during a review.

I had no idea - and you are right that explains a lot. Need to change that
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.