Even if they got every call exactly right, fans are going to be fans. Even when they do a great job, they are criticized by the fans of both teams on the field every single week.
Mack Wilson hit perfectly clean (image)
- Thread starter crimsonaudio
- Start date
If the fans are talking about the officials instead of the game play, it isn't because the officials did a good or bad job - it is because the officials are an easy target. They are human and make mistakes. Those things are a part of the game. Players get it and move on. Fans are looking for excuses and ways to rationalize poor play.
It's my observation that fans of losing teams complain a lot more about officiating. OTOH, some fan bases are absolutely obsessed with conspiracy theories and all the rest. Pay a visit to Tigerdroppings to see what I mean. They've worked themselves into a frenzy - in advance...
So, if it's so hard to call and there's such a fine line between what is and what's not targeting and since "intent" is almost impossible to prove (outside the most egregious examples of targetting, which are the exception rather than the rule), it seems some adjustments to the rule is needed:
Here's a start: three different types of targetting:
1. The first is "incidental" targetting where some helmet to helmet contact is made of a defenseless player. I think this is what happened with LSU's white. This could be a 5 or 10 yard penalty with no ejection.
2. The second is "excessive" targeting. While it would appear there was no "ill intent," the contact was just more severe. It involves two players just making extreme contact. Make this a 15 yarder with no ejection.
3. The third would be "egregious" targetting that appears to be done with the intent to injure. This is the extreme case of trying to take off someone's head by lanching and spearing. These are the real dangerous plays that lead to serious injury. This is the play that should be the 15 yarders with ejection (but just make it that game).
Here's a start: three different types of targetting:
1. The first is "incidental" targetting where some helmet to helmet contact is made of a defenseless player. I think this is what happened with LSU's white. This could be a 5 or 10 yard penalty with no ejection.
2. The second is "excessive" targeting. While it would appear there was no "ill intent," the contact was just more severe. It involves two players just making extreme contact. Make this a 15 yarder with no ejection.
3. The third would be "egregious" targetting that appears to be done with the intent to injure. This is the extreme case of trying to take off someone's head by lanching and spearing. These are the real dangerous plays that lead to serious injury. This is the play that should be the 15 yarders with ejection (but just make it that game).
Last edited:
They have worked themselves up into a massive frenzy over the SEC-Bama collusion theory. They have a massive thread going with gifs and videos of alleged missed calls on Bama. They are also showing hits made by Bama’s defense to try and prove we get away with targeting all the time. Most are from several years ago before the targeting rule existed. I’ve seen other sites that have similar conspiracy threads saying The SEC office is in collusion with Bama. The funny thing is, they never post the film of all the calls THEIR team got away with! I wanted to post the stats showing how in the past few years Bama’s opponents were the least penalized in the NCAA (or very close to being the least)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I think the funniest is their obsession with a relationship between Saban and Emmert. Emmert is a UW grad and was their chancellor, not ours...
I LOL’d at that as well when I read posts trying to make the Saban-Emmert connection!I think the funniest is their obsession with a relationship between Saban and Emmert. Emmert is a UW grad and was their chancellor, not ours...
It’s sad that instead of getting fired up for a good game, they are trying to make up every excuse in the book for getting beat before the game has even been played!
Saban was definitely right when he said on the first day that every other team will hate Bama! It has driven them to delusion!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Launching is just one of the indicators of targeting. Another is crouching. So don't get hung up on whether or not their feet leave the ground. It does make the launch much more obvious, but it's not required for a launch or crouch. And it doesn't make it automatic either.
I would say neither of these are strong targeting calls. The LSU one appeared on an unofficial training video by Dean Blandino (he has no authority in college officiating but he is respected by many). He didn't feel it was targeting.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I would say neither of these are strong targeting calls. The LSU one appeared on an unofficial training video by Dean Blandino (he has no authority in college officiating but he is respected by many). He didn't feel it was targeting.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Thanks. I said above that I thought they were both close calls. However, in both these calls, an issue is raised which disturbs me. The original premise of the review was to overturn a call only when there is clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. By that standard, both of these targeting calls should have stood. I think many, I'm one, think that it's become more a case of the booth (and Birmingham) simply substituting their judgment for the field officials. This causes confusion - and accusations of bias. Bama fans tend to laugh this off, knowing the stats both for teams playing against Bama and Bama playing other teams. Suffice it to say they do not support bias in favor of Bama, if anything, the opposite. Here is a clip which does a better job than most in explaining the rule:
Targeting
One is, and one is not targeting because that is what the zebras called and was confirmed. You should probably give some consideration to getting over it.
The NCAA rule on targeting says, "No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.”
By that rule (NCAA) it is targeting. That is not the SEC rule. It is THE NCAA rule. Now, as you see in the rule, it’s not just the helmet that can be used in targeting. It can also be the forearm, HAND, first, elbow or shoulder against a defenseless opponent. LSU fans are sayings he hit him with his hands first. Well, the rule just killed your argument. Actually, you made the argument for the refs. Though I only thought it was targeting before, I have no doubt it is targeting now. White did it to himself.
By that rule (NCAA) it is targeting. That is not the SEC rule. It is THE NCAA rule. Now, as you see in the rule, it’s not just the helmet that can be used in targeting. It can also be the forearm, HAND, first, elbow or shoulder against a defenseless opponent. LSU fans are sayings he hit him with his hands first. Well, the rule just killed your argument. Actually, you made the argument for the refs. Though I only thought it was targeting before, I have no doubt it is targeting now. White did it to himself.
I though Blandino was the director of instant replay for College Football Officiating. I believe that position has no on field authority, but it does have influence on replay officials. Or Am I mistaken. Personally, I would have not called targeting on White, but I’m Not a trained official either.
Oh, and he works for Fox, there is definitely an anti Bama bias on Fox due to the fact they never televise SEC Teams. How do I know? because I have watched Fox shows play down Bama’s accomplishments and Fox writers give credence to LSU claims of bias. BTW, I am in no way trying to imply that DB would be partial , just that he works for FOX
Last edited:
Yeah, didn't we have this very thing happen with Thompson against the viles? The ball carrier dropped his head to about knee level right as 14 was making the tackle. Called targeting on the field, but overturned in the booth IIRC...
Last edited:
This argument is as sad as UT bums whining on cigar smoking, they do when they win and no problem , we do it after win it is classless. Double standards all over the place. It is either okay for both or wrong for both, you cannot whine on one and cheer for other. Sorry folks one set of rules for all.
I actually think this would make it worse. having a ref on the field or in a booth trying to judge intent or severity opens up a big bad world of subjectivity. The only way to make this work is to have the rule be as black and white as possible, binary if you will.
Despite people thinking it's hard to call, it really isn't. It's just that too many people don't really know what the rule says and how broad it is. Some of it is written just as much to protect the defenders making tackles as it is those they are tackling. There will always be calls that are close and/or missed or hard to tell due to the speed of the game but the rule as written is pretty clear.
Latest threads
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 1
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
