Targeting Flags -- which do you agree with

LA4Bama said:

Yeah, this is a good point to keep in mind, but in my opinion "when in doubt..." is a poor standard for ejecting someone, which is probably why it's not enforced. I feel like the rule needs to evolve more. I know they want to eliminate every head to head hit, but that is not possible short of changing the game (which ranting coach was it recently that said football is a game about hitting?). I feel like the rule needs to be completed with explicit exceptions. Not "when in doubt", but targeting unless A or B or C etc. They are afraid to put in exceptions but without the exceptions they are also confused.

To out the same point another way, of saying it is targeting if a guy launches, or if a guy uses the crown, etc., put it the other way. Any head to head contact is targeting unless... And then specify. For example, in the PSU play, targeting... unless both players are going for a pass or losses ball. This is more like how the pass interference call is set up, and while that's not perfect I think it is still easier to look for a set of exceptions, any one of which enough, versus a setof conditions, where you have to decide which of things happened at once.

Click to expand...

LA4Bama said:

This much punishment is excessive, at least until they can get the enforcement of the rule more exact. I'd hate to see a kid suspended that long for a crap call by a ref.

Click to expand...

LA4Bama said:

That's true, but the cumulative effect will still result from individual calls, good ones and bad ones, and until the calls are made more consistent, it would be a shame to be accruing cumulative penalties of that magnitude. At least, that's my opinion. Get the calls reasonable and consistent, then let's talk about punishing repeat offenders.

Click to expand...

Jon said:

I thought this was pretty bad and #19 Ruffin deserved a flag too. To me it looks like as soon as he noticed that the QBs helmet was off 19 lowers his head to grind his facemask against the QBs face

scummy play

Click to expand...

LSUgrad2BamaDad said:

I don't have actual stats, but it seems like every game there are 2-3 stoppages in play to review for targeting. About half of those result in an ejection. Then, some just get missed. It is football and helmets will collide.

#6 for A&M was ejected and it was the right call. I happened to be in the end zone seats just below the student section where he was escorted to the locker room. Like a dummy, he puts his hand up to his ear (think of Hulk Hogan) taunting the students. Needless to say, choice words were directed his way, and his team was down 13-0. I digress...

when Speedy Noil got blown up on the kick return, did the officials even look at it? I'm asking you guys to be objective here. Should that have been ruled targeting? I was so caught up in the excitement when that happened, coupled with my disdain (probably unfair) for Noil that I didn't notice if a replay was even put on the screen. I heard he lost a tooth on the hit.

It just seems to me that the targeting rule isn't creating change in how the game is played. Isn't that the intent?

Click to expand...

crimsonaudio said:

I'll have to look but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the targeting rule that specifies the player has to be 'defenseless'.

Click to expand...

[Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
• A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.

/QUOTE]

Click to expand...

crimsonaudio said:

I'll have to look but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the targeting rule that specifies the player has to be 'defenseless'.

Click to expand...

teamplayer said:

I agree. The thought of when in doubt is just stupid. I don't think all helmet to helmet contact should be called either. Many times it is the offensive player who lowers his head like a battering ram or a guy who sees someone coming at the last second and flinches in self defense naturally that causes the head to head hit. Has targeting ever been called on an offensive player when they lower their head to run over someone? I doubt it. If a defensive player is going to hit someone in the chest and that player crouches or flinches in defense causing his head to drop, why is the defensive player supposed to be punished? I'm glad they are trying to eliminate the head hunting guys who launch themselves and try to knock someone's head off, but those calls are usually pretty clear. Some of these targeting calls make me feel like they should just hand out flags, and I could just find something else to watch. I know most here disagree, but I think the shot on Hurts against ole miss was a clean, hard hit. Jalen seemed to drop his head at the last second when he finally saw the guy, and that caused his facemask to be hit. The guy didn't launch, and he could have. He could have taken Jalen's head off, but he hit him in the chest. Again, though, that is just my opinion. Furthermore, if I haven't said it enough lately, give coaches one challenge per half for replay, and go back to telling the refs to call what they see and quit counting on replay to straighten things out ten minutes later. Aaaannnndddd, rant over. Roll Tide!

Click to expand...