Toggle sidebar

Pictorial Evidence of the Apparent Current Definition of Targeting

  • HELLO AGAIN, Guest! We are back, live! We're still doing some troubleshooting and maintenance to fix a few remaining issues but everything looks stable now (except front page which we're working on over next day or two)

    Thanks for your patience and support! MUCH appreciated! --Brett (BamaNation)

    if you see any problems - please post them in the Troubleshooting board!

Irrespective of the definition of targeting and the consistency, or lack thereof, of its enforcement, the point of the rule really was to get people to stop using their helmets as a weapon. It hasn’t worked. It’s time to junk the rule and come up with something else…
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: thingamajimbeux, BamaHoopsBoi, jashleyren2 and 3 others
  • Like
  • Thank You
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: thingamajimbeux, bamamc1, BamaHoopsBoi and 13 others
1.jpeg


200w.gif
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: BamaHoopsBoi, Maudiemae, bamagradinATL and 3 others
Due to the speed of the game, I cut the on-field refs a bit of slack. They still should be better, but given how fast things happen, and with only a couple of tenths of a second to make a call, I get how they could miss some.

But how the review crew so often gets it wrong and/or inconsistently-enforced is beyond me. They have essentially infinite sight angles, all synched up and advanceable frame by frame, and an infinity of time. Yet they still mess it up.

And yeah, how Smith's play is targeting, but the UGA guy's isn't, is just the latest in a long line of examples.

SEC refs, including the centralized review crew, are the worst.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg, CrimsonRuss and RammerJammer14
Smith’s targeting call was correct and the “crown of the helmet” part of the rule that got him is there to protect HIM from compressing the vertebrae in his neck and paralyzing him. You need to see what you are hitting. In years past that hit would be called spearing.
The UGA player launching himself like Superman into the pile headfirst towards a literally defenseless player who was being held up violates so many aspects of the rule it’s not funny.
I do wonder if a suspension for the first half of their next game can be done retroactively because the officials absolutely flubbed that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bamamc1, BamaHoopsBoi, CrimsonRuss and 2 others
The rule and the penalties handed out need to be updated. They have done a good job of eliminating that kind of tackling in today’s game for the most part.
 
AlistarWills said:
Smith’s targeting call was correct and the “crown of the helmet” part of the rule that got him is there to protect HIM from compressing the vertebrae in his neck and paralyzing him. You need to see what you are hitting. In years past that hit would be called spearing.
The UGA player launching himself like Superman into the pile headfirst towards a literally defenseless player who was being held up violates so many aspects of the rule it’s not funny.
I do wonder if a suspension for the first half of their next game can be done retroactively because the officials absolutely flubbed that one.
Click to expand...
I will say. That was some impressive athleticism to execute such a bone headed play. Dude lept over a pile to spear a standing player from above in the head. Dude will probably ace his Vertical test.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: BamaHoopsBoi and Maudiemae
crimsonaudio said:
Unless / until they can make the call consistently, I wish they'd drop the foul.

I get the reasoning, I really do - but the SEC refs are SO BAD that it truly feels like it's used to affect the outcome of the game rather than enforced uniformly.
Click to expand...
To me that horsecollar 28 received was far more dangerous than a hands first headbutt in traffic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderFan, colbysullivan, tusks_n_raider and 1 other person
It makes me wonder if helmets need to be less safe/protective in targeting-style hits so that players will stop doing it. These are not the kinds of hits you could pull off in an old-style leather helmet or a rugby helmet. This isn't an idea to get more players hurt, just to be clear. It's to get them to stop doing the battering ram thing.
 
CajunCrimson said:
To me that horsecollar 28 received was far more dangerous than a hands first headbutt in traffic.
Click to expand...
The second angle of that horse collar tackle shown on TV was very scary looking. If the ball carrier's foot had caught just a little on the turf there would have been serious injury (knee, foot, or hip). It really demonstrated the reason for that being illegal and fortunately didn't come with an injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCRollTider and AlexanderFan
Tubafore said:
It makes me wonder if helmets need to be less safe/protective in targeting-style hits so that players will stop doing it. These are not the kinds of hits you could pull off in an old-style leather helmet or a rugby helmet. This isn't an idea to get more players hurt, just to be clear. It's to get them to stop doing the battering ram thing.
Click to expand...
I understand and am susceptible to what what you’re saying - moral hazard and all that. Won’t ever happen though.

I’d be willing to bet this “technique” took a generation or more to take hold. It’ll probably take another generation to eradicate it, starting at Pop Warner level, assuming it can be consistently coached out for that long…
 
Not targeting, but take a look at the 4th down play where LT Overton tripped up the UGA RB.

The RB clearly had a grip on Overton’s facemask. It should have been our ball 15 yards upfield.

No way the call would have been missed if Overton had hold of the RB’s facemask.

SEC refs, example #6,349,853.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonRuss, AlexanderFan, NCRollTider and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back