• The KillerFrogs

Targeting-officiating

MTfrog5

Active Member
The thing I have the biggest problem is sitting out half of the next game. When crews enforce the rule differently it is a shame that some players have to sit out and others don't. Look at the Baylor game. They had a LB lead with the crown of his helmet. They reviewed it and over turned it so he now gets to play next week. There should at least be a group that looks at them after the week is over and rules if the player needs to sit anymore.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
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.

Ok, but imagine if holding or pass interference were reviewable calls. Do you think we'd see anything close to consistency in the way it was enforced? There is probably, if you go by the letter of the law, some degree of both penalties on virtually every play. There's no way in hell there'd be any consistency because it's almost a purely subjective call.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
The thing I have the biggest problem is sitting out half of the next game. When crews enforce the rule differently it is a shame that some players have to sit out and others don't. Look at the Baylor game. They had a LB lead with the crown of his helmet. They reviewed it and over turned it so he now gets to play next week. There should at least be a group that looks at them after the week is over and rules if the player needs to sit anymore.

This I agree with. Carrying the penalty over to the next game is unfair for that very reason.
 

Pharm Frog

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

I do not believe there's a penalty for hitting a QB "too low" in NCAA rules but even if there is it wouldn't be an ejection and possible next-game half-game suspension
 

Zubaz

Member
The reason for targeting to be reviewable is to allow for "When in doubt, it is a penalty", which is obviously what you would want for a rule like this. You don't want a ref tucking a flag just because he wasn't sure (a false negative is way worse than a false positive here), so you allow them to err on the side of penalty, with the option to remove it upon review.
 

NTXCoog

Member
I do not believe there's a penalty for hitting a QB "too low" in NCAA rules but even if there is it wouldn't be an ejection and possible next-game half-game suspension

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/new-rule-protect-passers-low-hits

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which met via conference call Wednesday, approved a new football rule to better protect passers from low contact at or below the knee.

The rule specifically covers a scenario in which a quarterback is in a passing posture with one or both feet on the ground. In that situation, no defensive player rushing unabated can hit him forcibly at or below the knee. The defensive player also may not initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the quarterback in the knee area or below.
 

Pharm Frog

Full Member
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/new-rule-protect-passers-low-hits

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which met via conference call Wednesday, approved a new football rule to better protect passers from low contact at or below the knee.

The rule specifically covers a scenario in which a quarterback is in a passing posture with one or both feet on the ground. In that situation, no defensive player rushing unabated can hit him forcibly at or below the knee. The defensive player also may not initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the quarterback in the knee area or below.

Did that pass? Have never seen it called. Article says it was recommended.
 
W

Way of the Frog

Guest
Ok, but imagine if holding or pass interference were reviewable calls. Do you think we'd see anything close to consistency in the way it was enforced? There is probably, if you go by the letter of the law, some degree of both penalties on virtually every play. There's no way in hell there'd be any consistency because it's almost a purely subjective call.

Dude, you have become so tiresome. First, targeting is the only reviewable refraction and to discuss what MIGHT happen if other infractions were reviewable doesn't matter. Two, the rule clearly states what is targeting and yet the officials still choose to add their own interpretation which rightfully leads to frustration from coaches, players, and fans.

Finally, your rant about inadequate protection provide by the type and manner in which equipment is worn misses the point as to why the targeting rule was put in place. No accident we got this rule about the time there was discussion of suing the NCAA as in the Whittier and Ploetz lawsuits.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Dude, you have become so tiresome. First, targeting is the only reviewable refraction and to discuss what MIGHT happen if other infractions were reviewable doesn't matter. Two, the rule clearly states what is targeting and yet the officials still choose to add their own interpretation which rightfully leads to frustration from coaches, players, and fans.

OK, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but I just read the targeting rules and going strictly by the rule (meaning 1 of 4 things must have occurred in order for it be "targeting"), and after watching the replay from a few angles, I think it was targeting if you go strictly by the rules. You and a lot of other people apparently don't think so. What's the solution? Who is right?

It's clearly frustrating but all they are saying is it's an important enough rule that, even though it's a judgement call to some degree (unlike other reviewable calls) we're going to give the refs a chance to see it on replay from a few angles so they can make their judgement based on a little more information. I don't see a problem with that. But it's still absolutely a judgement call that will almost never be black/white so you'll always have inconsistencies in how its applied. Now, carrying the penalty over to the next game is dumb.
 

NTXCoog

Member
Did that pass? Have never seen it called. Article says it was recommended.

Yes and rule clarifications were issued last year. I've seen it called but it's rare. I think it's hard to tackle that low. Even if you try to tackle low to avoid the head, you usually don't get below the upper thighs. I think it happens most often when the rusher is knocked to the ground, but tries to make a tackle from on his knees

https://www.sbnation.com/platform/a.../12113306/college-football-rules-changes-2016
 

2314

Active Member
This targeting rule is just stupid. Couple that with a bad call and it is really stupid. It didn't look to me like he had anything more than incidental contact with the QB's facemask while hitting him with his arms.
This rule is a reflection of our soft, overly-PC, snowflake society.
 

Diehard

Moderator
They should think about setting it up like the unsportsmanlike call. First time 15 (or maybe more) yards and second time ejected from the game and the next game. Just a thought.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
They should think about setting it up like the unsportsmanlike call. First time 15 (or maybe more) yards and second time ejected from the game and the next game. Just a thought.

I'd prefer just a 15-yard penalty, no in-game reviews. Then have the play reviewed by the conference after the game and if they determine there was clear intent to target then suspend the player for the next conference game. Not sure how this would be handled in OOC games but there has to be a better way than just automatically suspending a kid on a decision made in about 90 seconds. If there is pretty decent evidence that it was a wrong place at the wrong time situation, like a lot of these targeting penalties are when an offensive player lowers their head or slides or something at the last second, then they gotta let it go.
 
Top