Debatable Targeting and Obvious Facemask Penalties

[NENick]

A receiver faling backward, which brings his head lower, gets hit with a shoulder by DB who doesn't launch or use the helmet.

Two of the most egregious facemask penalties. One on Purdy, completely turning his head 180 degrees. The other on Hall (?), ripping his helmet off. In neither case did the defensive player appear to even attempt to release.

Which should result in ejection?

 

[Drew0311]

The targeting ejection rule is the dumbest rule ever. I never understood it. If they target hard on purpose then maybe. However to many players getting the boot for accidentally hitting a guy wrong. Maybe make it a 20 yard penalty

 

[burn587]

The one on Purdy was insane, but speaking from experience I can tell you once your fingers get in there it’s damn near impossible to get them out. For me it was either early high school or maybe middle school football and I was playing d-line. Running back gets through the hole and I tried to grab him by the front of the jersey while I was still engaged with the o-line and the running back must’ve lowered his helmet because my fingers got the mask and ended up whipping him right around. I didn’t even grab and pull, just got stuck in there.

 

[Die4Cy]

The targeting ejection rule is the dumbest rule ever. I never understood it. If they target hard on purpose then maybe. However to many players getting the boot for accidentally hitting a guy wrong. Maybe make it a 20 yard penalty

It's obviously not right. Some think the ejection should be something the referees have discretion on. I don't know if that's better.

 

[bawbie]

There were probably 5-6 other plays that had a similar hit to the targeting call, including our long snapper and on Hutchinson just before they ripped his helmet off. It just can’t be that arbitrary.

the ejection should be a reviewed judgment call on intent. If the refs determine they intended to injure, whether it’s targeting, face mask or a chop block, they should be able to eject the player.

 

[Gonzo]

There were probably 5-6 other plays that had a similar hit to the targeting call, including our long snapper and on Hutchinson just before they ripped his helmet off. It just can’t be that arbitrary.

the ejection should be a reviewed judgment call on intent. If the refs determine they intended to injure, whether it’s targeting, face mask or a chop block, they should be able to eject the player.

Agree. They need to revise targeting penalty in the same way they apply the facemask and roughing/running into kicker penalties... there should be one targeting call for intentionally trying to kill someone, resulting in 15 yards and the ejection; there should be a less severe targeting call for when the ball carrier turns or something that results in the head-to-head contact, resulting in maybe 10 yards and no ejection.

 

[Gordilly]

On the subject of questionable penalties, Ramos' chop block looked shaky to me. It appeared that he was on his knees and pushed the DL player at the waist. That shouldn't be a penalty unless it's below the waist, right? Did I just see it wrong? There was only a single replay so I wasn't sure...

 

[NWICY]

Agree. They need to revise targeting penalty in the same way they apply the facemask and roughing/running into kicker penalties... there should be one targeting call for intentionally trying to kill someone, resulting in 15 yards and the ejection; there should be a less severe targeting call for when the ball carrier turns or something that results in the head-to-head contact, resulting in maybe 10 yards and no ejection.

Damn it Gonzo it's hard to argue with you when your right .

 

[gocy444]

I’m still waiting for a key player, say Trevor Lawrence, to throw a block on a reverse that’s called as targeting and he’s ejected. Make the penalty super harsh, like 20-25 yards, but ejecting a player is dumb. What Isheem Young did was definitely targeting per the rules, but that was not a purposely malicious play. He missed out on the biggest game of his career because of a dumb rule. The only reason you should be ejected is throwing a punch, kicking etc.

 

[NENick]

Oops! Missed that there was already a Targeting thread.

 

[Macloney]

Agree. They need to revise targeting penalty in the same way they apply the facemask and roughing/running into kicker penalties... there should be one targeting call for intentionally trying to kill someone, resulting in 15 yards and the ejection; there should be a less severe targeting call for when the ball carrier turns or something that results in the head-to-head contact, resulting in maybe 10 yards and no ejection.

There is no 5 yard penalty for a less severe facemask in college football anymore. They are all 15.

 

[AllInForISU]

There were probably 5-6 other plays that had a similar hit to the targeting call, including our long snapper and on Hutchinson just before they ripped his helmet off. It just can’t be that arbitrary.

the ejection should be a reviewed judgment call on intent. If the refs determine they intended to injure, whether it’s targeting, face mask or a chop block, they should be able to eject the player.

A hit in the head is not automatically targeting. Those other hits you are referring to occurred on an established runner, which makes a difference. It doesn’t make it right or less dangerous, it’s just the way the rule is written.

you can’t take intent into the decision. That will undoubtedly lead to other issues. It should just be another unsportsmanlike conduct. 2 unsportsmanlike conducts and you’re gone.

 

[Gonzo]

There is no 5 yard penalty for a less severe facemask in college football anymore. They are all 15.

You serious Clark?

 

[BCClone]

The one I want to see again is Kolar first catch on the sidelines, he came down and got tackled while landing and he took a shoulder pad right in the face mask. Similar thing but no flag.

 

[Macloney]

You serious Clark?

Yep.

 

[clonehome]

On the subject of questionable penalties, Ramos' chop block looked shaky to me. It appeared that he was on his knees and pushed the DL player at the waist. That shouldn't be a penalty unless it's below the waist, right? Did I just see it wrong? There was only a single replay so I wasn't sure...

I agree with this. I thought Ramos and Simmons were both engaged high on the guy, like any double team. Just that Ramos came from a deep knee bend because he slipped or was off balance. Was not the typical high-low that tge rule is intended to prevent.

 

[clonehome]

Does anyone know if it was the same OU player who ripped off the helmet on both of those face mask penalties? If so, that should merit an ejection. Seems like it was that same big DL both times.

 

[jakemcilroy]

1) The targeting call was the correct interpretation of a bad rule.

2) Purdy late hit push was ” 50/50“ but given the other calls, I thought he’d get it.

3) The offsides was completely Iowa State’s fault. When they jump into the neutral zone you have to either snap it or flinch to get the penalty. Just hoping the refs call it isn’t enough. They call it without contact in the NFL, not in college.

 

[quasistellar]

It’s a BS rule but I can’t say it was called wrong. Young plays like that every game. He’s great and plays hard but he’s a bit out of control and it’s not his first time. Everyone knows about that rule by now especially Young.

The rule needs changed but it’s not why we lost this game.

 

[Cyburbbalz]

A receiver faling backward, which brings his head lower, gets hit with a shoulder by DB who doesn't launch or use the helmet.

Two of the most egregious facemask penalties. One on Purdy, completely turning his head 180 degrees. The other on Hall (?), ripping his helmet off. In neither case did the defensive player appear to even attempt to release.

Which should result in ejection?

I said the same exact thing. You are right with common sense but incorrect according to the rules.