Targeting Calls need a two tier system

Bama1985 · Oct 21, 2018

Targeting calls in current format are bad for the game. In many of the cases where the targeting call is made the offensive player changes his body position and creates a targeting that is not intentional. Would like to see the referee have the choice of imposing a lesser infraction of unintentional or incidental targeting. NCAA fixed the roughing the punter to a two tiered penalty call system by creating running into the punter. Maybe they can do the same with Targeting.

I think it is unfortunate that the LSU LB Devin White got the first half suspension for the our game. He did not look like he was intentionally trying to "target" the Miss St QB. It looks like he is even leading with his hands in order to lessen the force of contact. I hope the NCAA rules committee can come up with a way to fix this rule.

B1GTide · Oct 21, 2018

The rule needs help, but this won't work. There is no way to guess intent. The whole rule is a mess, but it only becomes more so if the officials have to guess intent.

AlistarWills · Oct 21, 2018

If they are truly going for player safety, I don’t see them moving from the current system of calling it then reviewing it. They are going to have to make everyone involved know that they are serious about blows to the head.
The LSU player could have come in with his hands up to block the view or bat the pass. Instead his goal was to light up the QB as best he could. I get that mentality, I truly do, but it seems the NCAA is intent on breaking it.

rgw · Oct 21, 2018

The fix is simple: you only get ejected for the rest of the game.

rgw · Oct 21, 2018

Additional point: I'd support a system where a player get ejected for the game then disqualified for their next game after two targeting calls and each successive targeting penalty after two in a season.

DzynKingRTR · Oct 21, 2018

rgw said:
Additional point: I'd support a system where a player get ejected for the game then disqualified for their next game after two targeting calls and each successive targeting penalty after two in a season.

This is what I think it should be. It should just be a 15 yarder, but get a second and you are gone. Treat it like an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

B1GTide · Oct 21, 2018

rgw said:
The fix is simple: you only get ejected for the rest of the game.

I think that the whole ejection thing should be removed from the game for a 1st offense. IMO, ejections should only take place when a player is guilty of more than one targeting offense in a season. First one is just a personal foul, second one costs you a game, third one costs you the remainder of the season.

rgw · Oct 21, 2018

The management issue for the conferences and between the conferences on each participant's "yellow card count" is the hold up I imagine.

So what! If you care about player safety and fairness in competition then create the infrastructure to make it happen.

TheRealPokeChop · Oct 21, 2018

they should have overturned the targeting on white honestly, but lsu fan reaction to it has me absolutely believing that it was targeting.

CajunCrimson · Oct 21, 2018

He made a risky play at a time where it didn’t matter. The game was won and out of hand. He didn’t need to make that hit. He was trying to pop the qb.

Stupid decision on his part

TUSCALOOSAHONOR · Oct 21, 2018

B1GTide said:
I think that the whole ejection thing should be removed from the game for a 1st offense. IMO, ejections should only take place when a player is guilty of more than one targeting offense in a season. First one is just a personal foul, second one costs you a game, third one costs you the remainder of the season.

I'm going to agree with the thread Op. But I don't think it has to show intent. No rule, as far as I know (of course I'm probably wrong), has an intent clause and the choices refs should be given on target would be no different.

JBama_in_PCOLA · Oct 21, 2018

I mean, he did launch himself. QB’s head also kinda jerked back. Tough call. The rule is messed up but it is applied uniformly. LSU is all up in arms because it’s their guy and it’s right before Alabama. It isn’t like they’ll be like this if it was UK/Vandy.

Ole Man Dan · Oct 22, 2018

My big complaint is when the runner lowers his head. It makes it too easy to make the wrong call on Targeting.

Maybe they should call Targeting on the runner who lowers his head...

GHoppr · Oct 22, 2018

Ole Man Dan said:
My big complaint is when the runner lowers his head. It makes it too easy to make the wrong call on Targeting.

Maybe they should call Targeting on the runner who lowers his head...

"Offensive targeting" like they have "Offensive Pass Interference"

Snuffy Smith · Oct 22, 2018

JBama_in_PCOLA said:
I mean, he did launch himself. QB’s head also kinda jerked back. Tough call. The rule is messed up but it is applied uniformly. LSU is all up in arms because it’s their guy and it’s right before Alabama. It isn’t like they’ll be like this if it was UK/Vandy.

I thought he launched as well and looks like he got him in the facemask with the crown of his helmet, as defined in the rules as anything above your face mask.

Tiggers are also upset thinking it was the same play that Mack made and didn’t get the call. Mack’s play looked bad in real time but the replay looked like he got him right above the numbers, which was pretty evident later considering the injury he left the game with.

This is what they are whining about. I managed to freeze it right at the point of impact and his facemask clearly in the chest.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

AlBamaWagg · Oct 22, 2018

AlistarWills said:
The LSU player could have come in with his hands up to block the view or bat the pass. .

Extremely risky to even try to do that because if the defender hits the head/helmet it's targeting.

ALA2262 · Oct 22, 2018

Ole Man Dan said:
My big complaint is when the runner lowers his head. It makes it too easy to make the wrong call on Targeting.

Maybe they should call Targeting on the runner who lowers his head...

Remove the blue font and you are spot-on. This has been my contention from the outset of the rule.

Especially in helmet to helmet contact. More often than not that occurs because the runner lowers his head.

tidehawk · Oct 22, 2018

I officiate HS games. We do have targeting fouls, but ejection is not automatic. We can determine if it is a flagrant foul or not. If we deem it is not flagrant, it is a 15 yd penalty. If it is deemed flagrant, it is 15 yds and an ejection for the remainder of the game. I think the NCAA needs to go to something similar, especially given the speed of their game.

tidehawk · Oct 22, 2018

ALA2262 said:
Remove the blue font and you are spot-on. This has been my contention from the outset of the rule.

Especially in helmet to helmet contact. More often than not that occurs because the runner lowers his head.

They have the ability to do that in HS. However, I have yet to see it called. I am assuming that it can be called in NCAA, but our rules are different.

Bazza · Oct 22, 2018

The OP made a point about how they treated the punter situation. We have two (tiered) penalties. 'Running into' and 'Roughing'.

In essence.....they are calling this "Unintentional" and "Intentional".

So why not have "Unintentional Targeting" and "Intentional Targeting"?

Penalty would be 15 yards for Unintentional and 15 yards plus disqualification for rest of game for Intentional.

Two Intentionals within' one game for any player and he doesn't play the next game.

EDIT: I see Tidehawk just made the same point 2 posts up^^^^

Targeting Calls need a two tier system

1st Team

TideFans Legend

All-American

Suspended

Suspended

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast

All-SEC

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Suspended

All-American

1st Team

All-American

HS Moderator

HS Moderator

TideFans Legend

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!