Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: Big Ten’s stance on targeting? ‘When in doubt, throw him out’

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Red Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    117,449

    Big Ten’s stance on targeting? ‘When in doubt, throw him out’

    Interesting....

    The NCAA made it known it was serious about reducing — or, attempting to reduce — head injuries when the Playing Rules Oversight Panel ruled in March that any player flagged for targeting a defenseless player would be automatically ejected from the game.

    That rule will apply nationwide beginning this season, and the Big Ten conference is apparently taking it to heart. Tom Dienhart of the Big Ten Network attended a gathering for conference officials on Saturday and noted that the Big Ten’s front office is telling officials to always err on the side of calling the foul.

    Targeting penalties will be subject to immediate video review as well as additional review on Mondays, but it seems the only way a player flagged for targeting can avoid ejection and/or suspension is if there’s conclusive video evidence to the contrary.

    That could be tough to prove. The new Big Ten stance, as Dienhart reports, is ”When in doubt, throw him out.

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...throw-him-out/
    Notre Dame only had one Rudy but Nebraska gets a new crop of Rudys every season

  2. #2
    Travel Squad
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,800

    RIP "Laying the Wood"

    That could be tough to prove. The new Big Ten stance, as Dienhart reports, is ”When in doubt, throw him out.“

    The decision to eject players for targeting applies to all leagues, the Big Ten just plans on going by an interpretation of the rule that has basically no wiggle room (Dienhart relays that fans should “get ready for ejections” this fall).
    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...throw-him-out/
    “If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.” Marcus Aurelius

  3. #3
    Travel Squad
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,800
    Sorry. Feel free to merge threads.
    “If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.” Marcus Aurelius

  4. #4
    pray for me ;)
    ColoREDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Denver 'burbs
    Posts
    47,454
    Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.Bill Watterson, cartoonist, "Calvin and Hobbes"

  5. #5
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    somewhere in Texas
    Posts
    30,992
    Good idea

  6. #6
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    somewhere in Texas
    Posts
    30,992

  7. #7
    Red Shirt
    bentNblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bellevue, NE
    Posts
    2,527
    I think most of the interpretation of "targeting" would be minimized if defensive players went back to "wrap up" instead of "collision".
    Steve
    bentNblue

  8. #8
    Recruit
    Twelve String's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Cabin Down Below
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Reign View Post
    I'm afraid this will lead to more legal Kenny Bell type blocks being called targeting.

  9. #9
    Red Shirt

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,118
    Honestly, this makes me want to stop watching football. This is utterly ridiculous. You're telling players to go use their body to try and bring someone down to the ground, but not to do it too hard?!?! More than any of the other BS rule changes lately, this is really going to change the game.

    How is a safety supposed to come up and make a hit without "targeting"? That is kind of the very purpose of having a safety. They're supposed to target and attack the guy with the ball. And they can get a big run-up to the ball carrier.

    What about a receiver coming over the middle? His path takes him right into the defense. So now they're supposed to let him pass them and then gently drag him down from behind while being careful not to do so by the shoulder pads? Heck, why not just play touch football?! That's where they're going with all this anyway!

  10. #10
    Red Shirt

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Twelve String View Post
    I'm afraid this will lead to more legal Kenny Bell type blocks being called targeting.
    Oh, absolutely. More than that though, they're going to eject a lot of guys for anything even remotely close to "targeting", which is still a term that is tough to define, much less call consistently.

    The main problem that I had with the Kenny Bell block was that he was essentially flagged for a rule they made up on the spot. What he did was 100% within the rules.

  11. #11
    Red Shirt

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by bentNblue View Post
    I think most of the interpretation of "targeting" would be minimized if defensive players went back to "wrap up" instead of "collision".
    I have a couple of problems with this. First, collisions are always going to happen when two guys are going at high speed. Second, what about when a guy is about to catch a pass and you need to separate him from the ball. Now you have to do it without hitting him too hard?! Ridiculous. Like I said in the other thread, might as well make it touch football.

  12. #12
    All Legend
    BuffSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Down The Road
    Posts
    16,033
    I wonder if the NCAA should have a yellow/red card option and administer them basically the same as FIFA does? Get one yellow card infraction keep playing, get a second yellow card, then your out for a game. A red card is constitutes 2 red cards and is used for the most egregious actions.
    It's a great day to be a Husker Fan!
    Live By The Code!
    (28-13-3) GATA If you see a skunk in the middle of the road, do you run it over or let it live? That is a quandary?

  13. #13
    Guest

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Viking Lake, Iowa
    Posts
    941
    I do have mixed feeling on this subject. Being an old fullback I led with my head many times. Back in the old days we were taught to lead with your head. I have two bulging disks in my neck now and when the room is quiet and I turn my head, it sounds like someone walking in gravel. I have KO'ed several back then with blindside blocks. Have had it happen to me as well. My son played as a fullback and has had neck surgery. It's a tough game and the speed gets faster and faster.

    Hitting someone that doesn't have their head on that swivel can be devastating. If the target is away from the play, I can see a penalty. When it is a needless hit flag them. The Bell hit last season was not to the head and the target was within reason of making a play on the ball carrier. I can see that as a valid hit. I believe they need to refine this rule. Players being targeted away from the play should always be flagged. If it was your kid being planted you have to worry. On the other hand a hit below the head when the target can indeed make the play should be examined much closer and I'm all for protecting the unprotected.

  14. #14
    All American
    Husker Country Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,512
    This is a very difficult rule to enforce. All tackles and hits should be made with the shoulders. However, the head is in close proximity to the shoulder.

    Oftentimes, the defender is coming in to tackle the ballcarrier, he comes in low. The ballcarrier, INSTNCTIVELY lowers his shoulder (and therefore his head), to meet the tackler (otherwise the ballcarrier is running straight up and down, and any hit will easily knock him down). Where the tackler was initially "targeting" the ballcarrier, everything is now lower, and he happens to hit the ballcarrier's helmet, with his helmet. "Targeting."

    KB's hit, IMO, was flagged for two reasons: 1) It was too violent 2) the hit directly resulted in a TD. The flag came late in the play, about the time the ballcarrier was at the 5, and it was clear he was going to score a TD.

    I'm all for eliminating headhunting. Blindside hits away from "the play" should be flagged. Safeties coming up and intentionally trying to take a receiver's head off should be flagged. "Defenseless player" needs to be redefined as a punter or kicker in the motion of kicking, or a player AWAY from the immediate vicinity of the ball, who gets hit above the shoulders (?).
    [television commercial] Hi, I'm Ricky Bobby. If you don't cheer for Big Red, then f-*bleep* you.

  15. #15
    Red Shirt Voice Of Reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ankeny, Ia.
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Country Doc View Post
    This is a very difficult rule to enforce. All tackles and hits should be made with the shoulders. However, the head is in close proximity to the shoulder.

    Oftentimes, the defender is coming in to tackle the ballcarrier, he comes in low. The ballcarrier, INSTNCTIVELY lowers his shoulder (and therefore his head), to meet the tackler (otherwise the ballcarrier is running straight up and down, and any hit will easily knock him down). Where the tackler was initially "targeting" the ballcarrier, everything is now lower, and he happens to hit the ballcarrier's helmet, with his helmet. "Targeting."

    KB's hit, IMO, was flagged for two reasons: 1) It was too violent 2) the hit directly resulted in a TD. The flag came late in the play, about the time the ballcarrier was at the 5, and it was clear he was going to score a TD.

    I'm all for eliminating headhunting. Blindside hits away from "the play" should be flagged. Safeties coming up and intentionally trying to take a receiver's head off should be flagged. "Defenseless player" needs to be redefined as a punter or kicker in the motion of kicking, or a player AWAY from the immediate vicinity of the ball, who gets hit above the shoulders (?).


    I agree with this.

    I think this rule came about because coaches are either unable or unwilling to teach proper tackling technique and many players don’t know or don’t care how leading with their head will affect their body in the future.

    Or maybe it came about because of all the lawsuits against the NFL by former players and the universities and conferences are being proactive to protect themselves from future lawsuits.

    Either way we can bitch all we want but it isn’t going to change anything. On the bright side unless our defense gets a lot more aggressive the new rule won’t affect us that much anyway.
    A wingnut is someone on the far-right wing or far-left wing of the political spectrum – the professional partisans, the unhinged activists and the paranoid conspiracy theorists, they’re the people who always try to divide rather than unite us.

    John Avlon







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •