Targeting-officiating

[froggrad08]

Not to my knowledge. Should be though. Clemson just got a bogus one as well. Helmet to helmet while runner falling.

I'd propose reviewing them all. Incidental or no intent ones like Bosins are cleared to play next week. Blatant one like the Boise state ones sit a game regardless of what half it occurred in.

Totally agree. That call was a load of bull. We need Boesen in the rotation this week.

 

[BrewingFrog]

CTE is a major major issue that, despite the recent focus and efforts, is still probably under-monitored considering the damage that it causes. I'd rather err on the side of caution and avoid the long term implications of those hits. This is especially true considering the age group that participates in college football.

Boesen committed a targeting penalty. It wasn't the nastiest hit in the world, it wasn't the "spearing" of days gone by, and it certainly wasn't intentional, but it was definitely targeting. I understand the frustration, and losing him for a half sucks, but I much prefer it to the alternative.

As soon as boxing, MMA, soccer, hockey, etc. are banned for this, perhaps I might start to take it seriously...

 

[Limp Lizard]

Actually the rule does take into account someone ducking. I remember that from the B12 meeting where head of officiating went over the rule the year it came into being. It was on the B12 site.

At least they got rid of the 15 yard penalty even if the call was reversed. That was insane.

 

[TopFrog]

Can't hit the QB in the head or face.

 

[frog-hat]

AAC official impacts next week's Big XII game. Seems the Big XII officials should at least be required to review in those situations.

EDIT: What the hell did I just say???

 

[Hoosierfrog]

I think the thing that got him was lowering his head and making contact with the crown. But there has to be some common sense about intent and force. There was a much harder hit in the first half that would have been less debatable.

 

[The Frog to be Named Later]

I think the thing that got him was lowering his head and making contact with the crown. But there has to be some common sense about intent and force. There was a much harder hit in the first half that would have been less debatable.

I get that in real time it looked like he hit him with crown. Replay should have exonerated him. If you're talking about the hit on the Smew receiver over the middle. that was a lead with shoulder and hit him in the chest.

 

[Pharm Frog]

Just curious if they are doing as much research on the playing surfaces as they are concentrating on player collisions. And the next time they call an offensive lineman for targeting by a crown to helmet collision with a DT or LB will be the first.

 

[More Frogs the Better]

AAC official impacts next week's Big XII game. Seems the Big XII officials should at least be required to review in those situations.

EDIT: What the hell did I just say???

Though the on-field officials were AAC, I'm pretty sure the replay crew was from the Big 12.

 

[Peacefrog]

Though the on-field officials were AAC, I'm pretty sure the replay crew was from the Big 12.

Big 12 refs paid off by UT because they are jealous of our success and hate that we are a small Christian school.

Oh [ Finebaum ]. I just baylored.

 

[frog-hat]

Though the on-field officials were AAC, I'm pretty sure the replay crew was from the Big 12.

Didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[RollToad]

Big 12 refs paid off by UT because they are jealous of our success and hate that we are a small Christian school.

Oh [ steaming pile of Orgeron ]. I just baylored.

Actually, now the delusion has shifted gears a little because somebody asked: why hasn't UT taken down TCU? Someone replied that it's because TCU is far enough to the left now that they'll leave us alone. So apparently it's never been about success? I can't keep up with these loons.

 

[Peacefrog]

Actually, now the delusion has shifted gears a little because somebody asked: why hasn't UT taken down TCU? Someone replied that it's because TCU is far enough to the left now that they'll leave us alone. So apparently it's never been about success? I can't keep up with these loons.

Of course!! Baylor had to go because UT hates conservatives. Makes perfect sense. Thankfully us frogs are a bunch of hippies.

 

[NTXCoog]

Just have to go low. And by low I mean knee-thigh high. If you go chest high and they duck, you still get bit by the rule. Once a few Heisman-type QBs have their knees blown up (and receivers too) maybe they'll start doing a better job of ensuring everyone is on the same page with what constitutes targeting (or spearing from my day). There were several times in the second half when Frog players just pulled up rather than driving toward contact.

Isn't there also a penalty for hitting a passer too low? But I guess that penalty is less than targeting

 

[TX_Krötenechse]

Bad targeting calls are a problem all over football. An OU player was ejected on Saturday for a 100% clean block. Boesen shouldn't have been ejected IMO, but it's at least a little ambiguous.

 

[Wexahu]

Generally, targeting works like this: If it's your guy who gets hit, it was an obvious flagrant penalty and the kid should be kicked out of the game. If it's your guy who does the targeting, it was a clean hit. Go to any team's message board, that's pretty much universal across college football.

 

[Prince of Purpoole]

Generally, targeting works like this: If it's your guy who gets hit, it was an obvious flagrant penalty and the kid should be kicked out of the game. If it's your guy who does the targeting, it was a clean hit. Go to any team's message board, that's pretty much universal across college football.

I'm not a Wexahu hater but Dude you know that it's not that simple. The rule is a problem, not in its spirit but in its application. An objective look at what is being flagged and not flagged shows there is a problem. At this point they should just say that regardless of intent if a player engages in helmet to helmet contact it is a ten yard penalty. If on replay the judgment is that the hit was intentional, add five yards and the relevant suspension

 

[WIN]

Boesen, the team and the fans handled the situation perfectly. Very impressed, a class act.
That being said, the targeting call takes away the natural flow of a hit which in the long run make it more dangerous, imo.

 

[Wexahu]

I'm not a Wexahu hater but Dude you know that it's not that simple. The rule is a problem, not in its spirit but in its application. An objective look at what is being flagged and not flagged shows there is a problem. At this point they should just say that regardless of intent if a player engages in helmet to helmet contact it is a ten yard penalty. If on replay the judgment is that the hit was intentional, add five yards and the relevant suspension

I know the rule is the "problem" as it's not very often clear cut exactly what happened, but that's the case with a lot of rules in football. What is pass interference? What is holding? I think the targeting on Boesen gets called 7 out of 10 times. I've definitely seen more flagrant targeting, but I've seen guys get ejected for less as well.

While we're on the subject of player safety, it's crazy to me that they take such a hard line stance against targeting yet allow guys to wear their pants 5 inches above the knee and wear shoulder pads that a junior high kid might wear. You can't tell me the game wouldn't be safer if players wore more padding. It would slow them down for sure, that in itself would make it safer.

 

[Way of the Frog]

I know the rule is the "problem" as it's not very often clear cut exactly what happened, but that's the case with a lot of rules in football. What is pass interference? What is holding? I think the targeting on Boesen gets called 7 out of 10 times. I've definitely seen more flagrant targeting, but I've seen guys get ejected for less as well.

While we're on the subject of player safety, it's crazy to me that they take such a hard line stance against targeting yet allow guys to wear their pants 5 inches above the knee and wear shoulder pads that a junior high kid might wear. You can't tell me the game wouldn't be safer if players wore more padding. It would slow them down for sure, that in itself would make it safer.

Find your happy place for a moment. The guidelines for a targeting call are quite clear, targeting is the only foul I believe is subject to an actual review, and yet we continue to see a level on consistency that is nothing short of confounding.

Every other foul is called and real time so the inconsistency to a degree is understandable, but when you have a call that is actually reviewed, potentially with multiple angles and the ability to slow images down and you can't get consistency something is wrong.