Sidebar

They Have To Do Something About This Targeting Rule

A

ALA2262

All-American
Aug 4, 2007
4,977
393
102
Cumming, GA
bamabelle1991 said:
I was flipping through 4 games last night but there was a call for targeting for a defender slapping the helmet of the receiver with his hand. Can't remember which game--maybe Clemson/Duke? UCF/Cinn? It was thankfully overturned as it was the most ridiculous I have ever seen. Zero contact with helmet to helmet. Literally hand to helmet. {facepalm}
Click to expand...
There are two different targeting rules. The one you refer to has to do with the crown of the helmet. The other has to do with contact to the head or neck area. By rule the play in question was targeting and should have been upheld.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is afoul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet,forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.
 
R

RedWave

All-SEC
Sep 26, 2000
1,579
3
0
Arlington, Tx
I really do appreciate the intent of the rule. Watch the Kevin Turner video and you will see just one example why finding a way to protect these players is important. That said, I am not always so sure that the penalty is called correctly. It seems to me the player that is guilty of causing the head to head collision is the one with the ball in their hands. And other times that the flagged player was going for another body part and things just went wrong and there was some incidental contact. I want players that are malicious and lay on those hard hits to get penalized and ejected. I don't want players making regular football plays with less than optimal results penalized. I still say removing the face masks will fix a lot of this.
 
A

ALA2262

All-American
Aug 4, 2007
4,977
393
102
Cumming, GA
RedWave said:
I really do appreciate the intent of the rule. Watch the Kevin Turner video and you will see just one example why finding a way to protect these players is important. That said, I am not always so sure that the penalty is called correctly. It seems to me the player that is guilty of causing the head to head collision is the one with the ball in their hands. And other times that the flagged player was going for another body part and things just went wrong and there was some incidental contact. I want players that are malicious and lay on those hard hits to get penalized and ejected. I don't want players making regular football plays with less than optimal results penalized. I still say removing the face masks will fix a lot of this.
Click to expand...
After digging further into the rule on the play that bamabelle commented on, I found that the foul probably was not upheld because the player was making a play on the ball. So the rules makers are attempting to take what you say into consideration.

This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul(Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1:“Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.
 
T

teamplayer

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2001
7,585
2,357
282
cullman, al, usa
B1GTide said:
Here's the thing - if we are going to save player's lives, we are going to have to do so by eliminating the risk, because young people have proven that they will take any risk for glory and money. You may feel better believing that this amounts to personal choice, but it is a choice made by people unable to properly evaluate consequences. So, is it really personal choice, or is it youthful ignorance being exploited for money?
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly think it is personal choice. I often equate it to the helmet law for motorcycle riders. It seems odd to me that we are okay with sending kids off to war, but letting them play football has come under attack. Some of the older players who do struggle with body and/or brain injuries still say they would not have changed their decisions. There are some who say they would never let their children play the game. Again, though, people have formulated their own opinions, and I thank you for yours. I like how you always explain your opinion instead of turning to personal attacks. Explaining your opinion makes for good debate and provides different insight, so thanks again.
 
B1GTide

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,588
47,165
187
teamplayer said:
Well, I certainly think it is personal choice. I often equate it to the helmet law for motorcycle riders. It seems odd to me that we are okay with sending kids off to war, but letting them play football has come under attack. Some of the older players who do struggle with body and/or brain injuries still say they would not have changed their decisions. There are some who say they would never let their children play the game. Again, though, people have formulated their own opinions, and I thank you for yours. I like how you always explain your opinion instead of turning to personal attacks. Explaining your opinion makes for good debate and provides different insight, so thanks again.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I am not okay with sending my kids off to war. Been there, done that, don't want my boys anywhere near a battlefield.
 
B1GTide

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,588
47,165
187
OakMtn4Bama said:
I'm not sure that going back to leather or just padded helmets wouldn't be the best idea.
Click to expand...
It would help, but not until this generation of athletes is cycled out of the sport. They have created habits that they cannot simply "unlearn".
 
B1GTide

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,588
47,165
187
ALA2262 said:
After digging further into the rule on the play that bamabelle commented on, I found that the foul probably was not upheld because the player was making a play on the ball. So the rules makers are attempting to take what you say into consideration.
Click to expand...
He was not even close to making a play on the ball. :confused:
 
B1GTide

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,588
47,165
187
ALA2262 said:
I thought he was attempting to knock down a pass. It was the way I saw it.
Click to expand...
Nope - he was going to try and tackle the receiver but his momentum took him too far away. He then reached out to slap at the receiver, and he took a swing, hitting him directly in the side of the head. He was behind the receiver and was never within range of the ball.
 
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,624
39,849
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
BTW, I am in the group who believe there needs to be some sort of "tiering," so that incidental and accidental contacts don't get escalated to ejection. There are other areas where the refs have broad discretion, such as the "unnecessary roughness" area mentioned above. There should be some discretion allowed in this area as well. The rule was formulated in such mind-numbing detail, in order to take discretion out of the picture, it's totally impossible to enforce consistently. There's no doubt in my mind that the LSU DB (Delpit?) was clearly trying to end Ruggs (?) continued participation in the game. The weak explanation given was that, since Ruggs had taken a half-step backwards, he was no longer "defenseless," despite the fact that he was clearly defenseless in any dictionary meaning of the word. (I suspect the real reason for the reversal was fear of riot, myself.) I think establishing two or three tiers, with broader, less lawyerly definitions, and allowing officials to gauge the situation with some common sense would remove some of these bizarre results...
 
tidehawk

tidehawk

HS Moderator
Staff member
Feb 9, 2001
1,925
94
217
59
Wetumpka, AL
I officiate HS games, and we have the ability to call targeting without ejection. If the foul is deemed flagrant, then ejection can be part of the penalty. Why the NCAA can't go to that is beyond me.
 
CHATTBRIT

CHATTBRIT

Hall of Fame
Dec 3, 2003
5,770
504
237
Falling Water, TN
In my beloved Association Football aka Soccer, in the EPL the ref has the option to give a yellow card (kind of a warning/tackle was outside the rules but not trying to endanger the player. A 2nd yelllow for a severe tackle/bad mouthing the ref/or kicking the ball away will result in an ejection from the game and a 1 game suspension. A straight red is generally used for a dangerous tackle that will endanger the opposing player/or a defender tackling an opposing player who is through on goal with only a goalie to beat. The average suspension is 3 games. However, a partiucularly egregious tackle could result in 4 or 5 games suspension. In 2012, Joey Barton (Crystal Palace) was sent off for a terrible tackle on a Man City player (Carlos Teves). While he was protesting his innocence he head butted another player (Vincent Kompany) and kicked a third (Sergio Aguero) He got a 12 game suspension for that little episode.

Tide - HSV this would effectively tier fouls so that not every infraction results in an ejection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

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.

Top Bottom