I'm done with targeting calls...

crimsonaudio · Dec 3, 2016

I get it, we're trying to protect players and I'm ALL FOR THAT (caps for emphasis), but ejection over what could be a mistake, misjudgment, etc., is simply too much. I saw a player almost rip Damian Harris's head off tonight get hit with a 15 yard penalty - Harris was shaken up on the play - while a Clemson player was just ejected for a 'good football play'. Yes, he went high, and yes, I understand protecting players, but when Jalen Hurts gets OBVIOUSLY targeted (against OM) - to the point that the color commentator calls it - and nothing happens, I'm sick of it.

If you want to call targeting, simplify the rules and enforce it 100% of the time, or eliminate the rule. I'm sick of the 'maybe' calls.

Make its absolute or get rid of it.

B1GTide · Dec 3, 2016

Couldn't agree more.

CrimsonForce · Dec 3, 2016

Pretty simple solution. Make the first offense just a 15 yard penalty. Second offense (for same player) is ejection..

teamplayer · Dec 3, 2016

I think they often take it way too far and would say to be careful what you wish for because they'll be playing flag football before long.

russtang · Dec 3, 2016

CrimsonForce said:
Pretty simple solution. Make the first offense just a 15 yard penalty. Second offense (for same player) is ejection..

You have to figure out what is actually an "offense" first.

CrimsonForce · Dec 3, 2016

russtang said:
You have to figure out what is actually on "offense" first.

True. But, even calling it like they do now it would be very unlikely for a player to get ejected from the game. That's what most people don't like about the rule. Otherwise missing the targeting call would be no different than missing any other call like holding and PI. I don't have a problem with an official missing a call but I do have a problem with an official missing a call when it leads to player ejection. Just need to tweak (my suggestion) or take the ejection part out..

RammerJammer14 · Dec 3, 2016

CrimsonForce said:
True. But, even calling it like they do now it would be very unlikely for a player to get ejected from the game. That's what most people don't like about the rule. Otherwise missing the targeting call would be no different than missing any other call like holding and PI. I don't have a problem with an official missing a call but I do have a problem with an official missing a call when it leads to player ejection. Just need to tweak (my suggestion) or take the ejection part out..

Better than it was, though. Used to be 15yd penalty, then review to see if it really was to see if the player should actually be ejected, but the penalty yardage would still stand even if ruled to not be targeting. I still want to know what genius thought that one up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B1GTide · Dec 3, 2016

Guys, I have no faith in the ability of officials to use good judgement in their reviews. The ejection portion just needs to be removed altogether.

russtang · Dec 3, 2016

CrimsonForce said:
True. But, even calling it like they do now it would be very unlikely for a player to get ejected from the game. That's what most people don't like about the rule. Otherwise missing the targeting call would be no different than missing any other call like holding and PI. I don't have a problem with an official missing a call but I do have a problem with an official missing a call when it leads to player ejection. Just need to tweak (my suggestion) or take the ejection part out..

I agree. Player shouldn't be ejected on first offense when it is his fault. I think it was Thursdays game where you had an offensive player duck his head at the last second going after the ball and the defensive player was called for targeting. It should be a no-call or a call on the offensive player if you want to call a penalty on somebody.

There should be NO penalty for the first half of the next game crap either. That's just silly.

crimsonaudio · Dec 3, 2016

B1GTide said:
Guys, I have no faith in the ability of officials to use good judgement in their reviews. The ejection portion just needs to be removed altogether.

That's really (honestly) good enough.

colbysullivan · Dec 3, 2016

crimsonaudio said:
That's really (honestly) good enough.

Yep. If they must have some type of punishment other than the yardage, make that player sit out the rest of the series or quarter or something. An entire game is overkill IMO. Still, none of this matters when they very rarely get the call right to begin with. So many of them are wrong (Brown).

Intl.Aperture · Dec 3, 2016

crimsonaudio said:
That's really (honestly) good enough.

I agree. I also think they should change the name of the penalty. "Targeting" sounds intentional ,which is kind of how it is enforced with an ejection, when so much of the contact is incidental. Something more literal would be welcome.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

colbysullivan · Dec 3, 2016

Intl.Aperture said:
I agree. I also think they should change the name of the penalty. "Targeting" sounds intentional ,which is kind of how it is enforced with an ejection, when so much of the contact is incidental. Something more literal would be welcome.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just hate the rule altogether. The hypocrisy of it is maddening. Helmets collide on every running play, contact is often instigated by the offensive player, but no one bats an eye...

DrollTide · Dec 4, 2016

I felt the facemask on Harris was egregious enough that it should have resulted in an ejection. I don't think you get to unscrew a guy's head one time and get away with a 15 yarder.

Somewhat unrelated, but during the ejection, that is the first time I've seen two penalties on one play enforced sequentially, half the distance twice. When the ref started his call with "Personal foul, that penalty is cancelled", I thought ooooh this is gonna be good.

Snuffy Smith · Dec 4, 2016

DrollTide said:
I felt the facemask on Harris was egregious enough that it should have resulted in an ejection. I don't think you get to unscrew a guy's head one time and get away with a 15 yarder.

Somewhat unrelated, but during the ejection, that is the first time I've seen two penalties on one play enforced sequentially, half the distance twice. When the ref started his call with "Personal foul, that penalty is cancelled", I thought ooooh this is gonna be good.

The two that were enforced were the body slam (during the play) and the unsportsmanlike conduct (after the play). I have seen that a few times. Even if the dead ball had been on us they would have enforced both.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probius · Dec 4, 2016

CrimsonForce said:
Pretty simple solution. Make the first offense just a 15 yard penalty. Second offense (for same player) is ejection..

This would be a good idea.

VirginiaTide57 · Dec 7, 2016

Read an article today in Chicago Booth Review that might shed some light on targeting calls. A phenomenon, first found in sports replays, showed that a collision seems worse in slow motion than in real time. A study showed that those watching events in slow motion were more likely to feel that the aggressor acted intentionally rather than reflexively. The upshot is I believe officials are influenced by the slow motion replay and become biased against the tackler, and leads to a targeting penalty.

CrimsonForce · Dec 7, 2016

VirginiaTide57 said:
Read an article today in Chicago Booth Review that might shed some light on targeting calls. A phenomenon, first found in sports replays, showed that a collision seems worse in slow motion than in real time. A study showed that those watching events in slow motion were more likely to feel that the aggressor acted intentionally rather than reflexively. The upshot is I believe officials are influenced by the slow motion replay and become biased against the tackler, and leads to a targeting penalty.

I think that slow motion replay should be reserved for tangible calls being reviewed. IOW, if a players knee was down before the ball came out or did the runner cross the goal line or step out of bounds. Slow motion should not be used when reviewing "judgement calls" such as targeting. They could slow motion replay the LOS and find all kinds of penalties every play..

Intl.Aperture · Dec 7, 2016

VirginiaTide57 said:
Read an article today in Chicago Booth Review that might shed some light on targeting calls. A phenomenon, first found in sports replays, showed that a collision seems worse in slow motion than in real time. A study showed that those watching events in slow motion were more likely to feel that the aggressor acted intentionally rather than reflexively. The upshot is I believe officials are influenced by the slow motion replay and become biased against the tackler, and leads to a targeting penalty.

Fascinating. Do you have a link? Was it a scientific study they were reporting on? Substantial evidence could be valuable to the league officials in changing the way they interpret the data. Subliminal subjective bias is nothing new in sports but if the could empirically prove and remove the subliminal nature that might help clarify these murky calls.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

92teamownsall · Dec 7, 2016

My wife screamed when Damians head turned all the way around like something from the exorcist, it was quite disturbing. Nothing warrants a ejection from a game more than that facemask I have witnessed this year.

I'm done with targeting calls...

Administrator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

All-American

Administrator

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-American

Scout Team

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!