-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
No Change to Targeting Rule in 2018, but Evaluations Ongoing
- Thread starter Florida Husker
- Start date
Somewhere, Nate Gerry and Eric Martin are still sitting out a quarter
Understand the reason for the rule . . . but the ejection penalty and the ridiculously lame instances where it's been wrongly called make it an idiotic rule. Increase the yardage or whatever, but guys have been kicked out of big games for the most ticky-tack "violations". Gerry's textbook form tackle being the poster child for a rule gone full potato.
Nailed it like Scott Frost hammering a poor DB on his way to the end zone
To keep the rule they need to correctly call and review and that is going to more than likely require additional training for officials. Some of the 'targeting' calls in recent years have been so bad. Might as well call it the 'He hit him really hard' rule.
MartyHuskerFan
Tired and True
CH. You nailed it so good, I cant think of anything to add. but then again, I continue... For the players' safety, got to cut down on legit evil targeting. The call should NOT be made just because a play looked violent. Players need to be rewarded for plays that look violent as long they are playing by the rules. There should be technical rules to dictate the assessment of a penalty. There are already behavior rules like taunting that take into account a player's intent and attitude on a play. Player ejections on first time offenses should only occur for behavioral incidents, not for poor technique.
So are you thinking something like the yellow/red card system in soccer? Where upon the review if it look like the player tried to avoid but the contact is incidental then it is just 15. However if upon review it is determined that the intent was to do an illegal hit and cause harm he is gone. By the same token two of the lesser offenses (yellow card) in the same game also lead to an ejection.
Not a soccer fan but i do think that could be a good system to follow in this case.
Bingo.
They need to make changes to take into account incidental contact and/or change in position made by the tackled player. It has far too often turned into "that was a hard looking hit and their helmets touched." Or as had been mentioned, the tackler clearly aimed lower on the body, but the runner/QB/receiver slipped, ducked, lowered their head, etc and it ends with contact to the head that was going to be contact at the knees, thighs, waist, etc. Then the tackler gets booted.
Seems you ought to be able to put together a pretty simple flow chart and have someone (or a panel of 3) who can run through that and make a far more fair call on these with ratcheted penalties including more yards, loss of timeouts, etc.
- Was helmet to helmet contact made?
- Did the contact appear to be incidental/minor or direct/excessive?
- Was the contact the result of a change in position by the ball carrier after the tackler was committed?
That could lead to:
Or something like that. Boot the guy who is clearly headhunting or out of control. Stop booting kids for ticky-tack "contact" or contact that was out of their control after they committed to the tackle.
Seems you ought to be able to put together a pretty simple flow chart and have someone (or a panel of 3) who can run through that and make a far more fair call on these with ratcheted penalties including more yards, loss of timeouts, etc.
- Was helmet to helmet contact made?
- Did the contact appear to be incidental/minor or direct/excessive?
- Was the contact the result of a change in position by the ball carrier after the tackler was committed?
That could lead to:
- If the contact was incidental/minor/unclear (Gerry vs UCLA), then 15 yards and no ejection.
- If the contact was direct/excessive and not due to change in position by the ball carrier (1st of the game), then 20 yards or half the distance to the goal and tackler is ejected. 2nd offense on the defense (any other player) is 25 yards or half the distance to the goal and player ejected. Maybe add 5 yards each time and/or loss of timeout or something.
- If the contact was direct/excessive but due to change in position by the ball carrier after the tackler committed, then 15 yards (I would argue no penalty, but in the interests of "safety" I could handle yard but ejection is dumb in those cases when the tackler did everything right outside of magically defy the laws of physics)
Or something like that. Boot the guy who is clearly headhunting or out of control. Stop booting kids for ticky-tack "contact" or contact that was out of their control after they committed to the tackle.
I
inthedeed
Guest
this actually the most reasonable interpretation I think I've ever heard. good job. maybe a 5 yd or 15 yd for incidental but then again maybe too complicated
No change ?? Cunningham is pissed off.
Eddie wants automatic ejections, no questions asks and offender at least 1 year jail time.
Eddie wants automatic ejections, no questions asks and offender at least 1 year jail time.
Last edited:
Seems as if they used to do a good job of calling flagrant and dangerous hits in the NFL before college had this version of the rule. I never had a problem with that. I hate instant replay but if we're stuck with it, one would think they could do a better job of isolating clearly flagrant and dangerous hits and let the others go, no penalty.
Last edited:
