BREAKING Milroe declares for draft

[Cruloc]

I still like this one....and the music put to it in the video.

 

[AlistarWills]

I still like this one....and the music put to it in the video.

Sadly that is now a targeting penalty.

 

[mlh]

JM's comment when asked about possibly changing positions in the NFL:

"It's always [been] quarterback," he said—relaying that he doesn't intend to play elsewhere in the NFL. "Of course the question's asked, you know, switching positions and stuff like that, what I can do. But you never ask a zebra to be a dog."

 

[CrimsonTitles]

JM's comment when asked about possibly changing positions in the NFL:

"It's always [been] quarterback," he said—relaying that he doesn't intend to play elsewhere in the NFL. "Of course the question's asked, you know, switching positions and stuff like that, what I can do. But you never ask a zebra to be a dog."

Isn't that what they've been doing his whole career?

 

[B1GTide]

Sadly that is now a targeting penalty.

I mean, maybe. Who really knows? It differs from play to play.

 

[Cruloc]

I mean, maybe. Who really knows? It differs from play to play.

Depends on what ref crew you have that day and whether they woke up on the left side of their bed or the right....and if the hot water was out that morning.

 

[some_al_fan]

JM's comment when asked about possibly changing positions in the NFL:

"It's always [been] quarterback," he said—relaying that he doesn't intend to play elsewhere in the NFL. "Of course the question's asked, you know, switching positions and stuff like that, what I can do. But you never ask a zebra to be a dog."

I think Milroe is correct. At any other position he will suck even more than at QB.

 

[gtgilbert]

Sadly that is now a targeting penalty.

nah - not to the head or neck, and also had his head up so not of the 'spearing' variety.

 

[Cruloc]

nah - not to the head or neck, and also had his head up so not of the 'spearing' variety.

Still depends on the tilt of the refs head.

 

[AlistarWills]

nah - not to the head or neck, and also had his head up so not of the 'spearing' variety.

He jumped and the QB’s helmet moved….they’d bury him under the stadium for it now.

 

[BamaFan6462]

I don't know if it is better than Bennett on Buerline but at the moment and the game this took place it has to be ranked very high on the list of top plays for Alabama football.

I remember playing Tennessee one year and they intercepted the ball right at the end of the game. As the defender started running downfield Shaun Alexander came out of nowhere and laid a brutal hit on him.

 

[BamaBoySince89]

I mean, maybe. Who really knows? It differs from play to play.

Depends on what QB is getting that treatment

 

[RammerJammer14]

I still like this one....and the music put to it in the video.

Great play, and whoever put that music to it is a genius!

 

[4Q Basket Case]

nah - not to the head or neck, and also had his head up so not of the 'spearing' variety.

And all that matters because....why?

Seriously, you're absolutely right. But in actual practice, the calls and no-calls are so variable it's clear that nobody knows what targeting is. Not even (or maybe especially) the refs.

Add the clear influence of the position played by the guy receiving the hit, and you might as well have a drunk chimpanzee making the call.

As I've said many times before, the game is so much faster and the athleticism so much greater than in the past, I cut the on-field refs some slack. But every on-field targeting call is reviewed. And targeting is one of the few penalties that can be imposed from the box even if the refs on the field didn't call it.

So I simply cannot understand why the enforcement is so variable when review officials literally have a dozen camera angles, all with frame-by-frame capability, and as much time as they want to make the call.

 

[gtgilbert]

And all that matters because....why?

Seriously, you're absolutely right. But in actual practice, the calls and no-calls are so variable it's clear that nobody knows what targeting is. Not even (or maybe especially) the refs.

Add the clear influence of the position played by the guy receiving the hit, and you might as well have a drunk chimpanzee making the call.

As I've said many times before, the game is so much faster and the athleticism so much greater than in the past, I cut the on-field refs some slack. But every on-field targeting call is reviewed. And targeting is one of the few penalties that can be imposed from the box even if the refs on the field didn't call it.

So I simply cannot understand why the enforcement is so variable when review officials literally have a dozen camera angles, all with frame-by-frame capability, and as much time as they want to make the call.

IMHO, I think there is a lot less variability than a lot of folks think, but the way the rule is written can get confusing for a lot of fans.

Targeting isn't really just one thing or one rule. It's two rules bundled under the same name.

One is the old spearing rule. A player can't use the 'crown' of the helmet to initiate contact. It doesn't matter where that contact happens on an opponent.
The other is forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player, which is all targeting used to be before the above was bundled in. The forcible contact can be with anything - not just the crown of the helmet and that gets folks sometimes because they think the stuff above applies when it does not. 'defenseless' is the area that can get a little bit gray plus refs have been instructed that if there is doubt, it is targeting so anything borderline gets pulled in.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Refs are also advised that when in doubt deem it targeting even after they review it on camera. So they already lean toward calling rather than not. So right off the bat they aren't starting in an objective position.

 

[B1GTide]

Refs are also advised that when in doubt deem it targeting even after they review it on camera. So they already lean toward calling rather than not. So right off the bat they aren't starting in an objective position.

There is something very wrong with that.

 

[BamaFan6462]

Refs are also advised that when in doubt deem it targeting even after they review it on camera. So they already lean toward calling rather than not. So right off the bat they aren't starting in an objective position.

I don’t really have a problem with refs flagging a play to get a better look on a replay, but there’s been too many instances where they‘ve ruled incorrectly even when video evidence was clear. There’s no doubt that player safety should be the first priority, but every season some officiating crews have a track record of changing the outcome of a game, whether it’s with targeting or some other interpretation of a rule. Until college football puts more accountability on officials and/or employs more technology to ensure correct calls, spots, etc., subjectivity isn’t going to improve the situation.

 

[some_al_fan]

Seriously, do we need to have the refs?
With so many camera views, machine learning should be able to process the videos and make a more accurate call, according to the rules it was trained on.
Sure, it takes the human factor out of the game, and fans will always be unhappy about something, but that would be an unbiased and technically correct call

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

Seriously, do we need to have the refs?
With so many camera views, machine learning should be able to process the videos and make a more accurate call, according to the rules it was trained on.
Sure, it takes the human factor out of the game, and fans will always be unhappy about something, but that would be an unbiased and technically correct call

It's coming...