Targeting

[atlantacyclone]

Seems to me that one of the creatives around here should create a video or meme showing the second targeting call in the Alamo Bowl and compare that to the hit on Murray where his helmet came off in the playoffs. The contrast in officiating is incredible...

 

[Urbandale2013]

Targeting just needs to be nuked. Restart fresh with a new rule. The current rule is ineffective and inconsistently enforced. Egregious targeting deserves an ejection but 90% of the time it doesn’t deserve an ejection. To often defenders are screwed by these calls.

 

[atlantacyclone]

I'm not sure I am against it in some cases... but enforcement of targeting cost us the game and could have given OU a better chance.... not that the booth review on the fumble and the second TD didn't screw them enough...

 

[brianhos]

First one deserved ejection, second one was stupid.

 

[aeroclone]

I feel like it needs to be a two stage foul like they used to have with a facemask. However, I have no faith in the officials to apply the stages consistently either.

 

[Urbandale2013]

First one deserved ejection, second one was stupid.

I don’t even think it really deserved one. It was an easy call based on the current rule but Harvey goes low and to the side. Minshew just lowers his head into that spot after being hit from behind. If Minshew doesn’t get hit from behind Harvey makes a pretty textbook tackle IMO. That’s one where you have to do something because the hit is dangerous but no amount of technique is going to stop it.

 

[3TrueFans]

There needs to be two different penalties with different consequences. Targeting with excessive force, launching, intent to injure etc. gets an ejection just like now. Less severe targetting but still helmet to helmet should be 15 yard personal foul and two in a game is an ejection. I don't see how you accomplish it without just relying on the refs judgement, but maybe that'd be enough.

 

[curtgouty]

I tweeted that to C. Williams this am. The Alabama kid even drove his shoulder and as much of his weight into Murray as well. Helmet to helmet initiation to start etc....

 

[Clonefan94]

I think if we start a few more threads on Targeting, all will be solved.

 

[cyfanatic13]

Like others have said, I had no issue with Harvey's being called. It wasn't intentional but that's what the rule is supposed to prevent. The one on Uwazurike though... was not called targeting all year, and if they start to call that around football, there's going to at least be one ejection a game. That play was so common you just can't call that targeting

 

[Knownothing]

There needs to be two different penalties with different consequences. Targeting with excessive force, launching, intent to injure etc. gets an ejection just like now. Less severe targetting but still helmet to helmet should be 15 yard personal foul and two in a game is an ejection. I don't see how you accomplish it without just relying on the refs judgement, but maybe that'd be enough.

I would even be in favor of you hit two in the course of a season you get the boot on the second one. Like someone said, I don’t trust officials to get it right. Shoot half the reviews in the booth are wrong on normal plays

 

[CNECloneFan]

There needs to be two different penalties with different consequences. Targeting with excessive force, launching, intent to injure etc. gets an ejection just like now. Less severe targetting but still helmet to helmet should be 15 yard personal foul and two in a game is an ejection. I don't see how you accomplish it without just relying on the refs judgement, but maybe that'd be enough.

Something like that would certainly help. Sort of like roughing the kicker vs. running into the kicker. Or whatever the actual terms are.

 

[clonedude]

IMO, "intent" should be the key.

Enyl had no intent to cause any harm whatsoever, and that is just plain obvious.

However, on our very next series right after Enyl gets tossed, Monty catches a pass out in the flat, and the WSU CB totally just lowers his head and leads with the crown of his helmet, and a helmet to helmet is only avoided because Monty has a split second to move his head to the side so the WSU player's helmet hits his shoulder.

Now, out of those two plays, which one is 10x more dangerous to the players safety and health? Enyl just basically landing on Minshew and their helmets touch, or the WSU player leading with the crown of his helmet going full speed into Monty, and only missing Monty's helmet because Monty had a split second to avoid it?

 

[DeereClone]

Harvey’s was the right call - the punishment of ejection is insane.

Also how is it ok for the offensive player to completely lower their helmet and initiate contact with their helmet. Case in point was the Alabama running back completely lowering his head and smoking that Oklahoma safety yesterday. It’s just as dangerous (or more) as a defensive player lowering his helmet for a tackle.

 

[Blandboy]

Harvey’s was the right call - the punishment of ejection is insane.

Also how is it ok for the offensive player to completely lower their helmet and initiate contact with their helmet. Case in point was the Alabama running back completely lowering his head and smoking that Oklahoma safety yesterday. It’s just as dangerous (or more) as a defensive player lowering his helmet for a tackle.

Totally agree! The running back lowered his head to make contact with the crown of the helmet. THAT was targeting.

 

[atlantacyclone]

I’m still waiting for someone to put the two videos together!

 

[CYEATHAWK]

Seems to me that one of the creatives around here should create a video or meme showing the second targeting call in the Alamo Bowl and compare that to the hit on Murray where his helmet came off in the playoffs. The contrast in officiating is incredible...

One was Iowa State........the other Alabama. There is your contrast.

 

[browns4cy]

I have a hard time being ok with it taking a both review to call it targeting and ejecting a player when no penalty was originally called. The word intent makes it even more so as officials on the field should be more inept of the intent then the booth. Targeting rules have been bad for a long time and tv announcers have always seemed to disagree with the punishment for most of them.

 

[kcbob79clone]

I’m still waiting for someone to put the two videos together!

Better video would be all the 'targeting' calls NOT made in B1G games this year with that crew.

 

[Cyrealist]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the rule; it just needs to be enforced with some consistency. Officials, especially those assigned to the booth, should be able to look at 15 videos and agree on at least 12. The way the second one on ISU was called, they essentially create a halo around the offensive player's head which the defenders helmet is not allowed to enter, even incidentally.No one can play defense that way.