1. 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.
    Dismiss Notice

Proposed Targeting Rule Update

Discussion in 'Football' started by DuckTownHusker, Jan 10, 2019.

  1. DuckTownHusker

    DuckTownHusker Blackshirt Sith Lord 5 Year Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    2,580
    Good article on the HM front page about a proposal to update targeting, which modifies the current targeting penalty to a 2-tiered system.
    • Targeting 1 would carry a 15yd penalty, and is not malicious.
    • Targeting 2 is for malicious hits, and carries immediate ejection, plus the 15yd penalty.
    Article also mentions that players who get multiple T2 penalties in a season could face stiffer penalties, which presumably means suspensions or getting benched for multiple games.

    https://collegefootball.ap.org/huskermax/article/coach-group-wants-ejection-ruled-out-some-targeting-hits
     
  2. DuckTownHusker

    DuckTownHusker Blackshirt Sith Lord 5 Year Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    2,580
    Personally, I think this is a great update to the rule and hope it carries through. It's obvious that many times, a targeting call is not intentional or malicious, but just a defender who's pursuing and the ball carrier takes a weird angle. Not much a defender can do when they're already airborne and the QB or RB decides to slide or go low. A shoulder/head hit is practically unavoidable at that point.

    With all the multiple camera angles and slow-mo replays available, it should be relatively easy to determine if a hit was "premeditated" or just a freak collision in a physical sport. I'm sure there will still be disputes, but this should help a LOT.
     
    Vinosker, alabamahusker and solesrfr like this.
  3. Huskerthom

    Huskerthom Blackshirt 2 Year Member

    Messages:
    15,664
    Likes Received:
    5,650
    If used correctly I like it. Problem is how do you determine malicious? Also who determines it? The replay official? The head of the crew?
     
  4. joncarl

    joncarl Nobody important 10 Year Member

    Messages:
    9,307
    Likes Received:
    2,732
    some of the targeting calls happen when a defender is going into make a play, already committed and the offense lowers their head/ducks or perhaps gets 'whipped' around and the defender is in the wrong place at the wrong time. While not perfect I think it is a good compromise for now. I think we could all make a case that some of the calls are just the defender in the wrong place at the wrong time. I also assume that the replay official will have the last word like they do now.

    As far as malicious I have heard repeatedly that a defender 'left his feet' or 'leapt' I would think that would be defined as malicious.
     
  5. DuckTownHusker

    DuckTownHusker Blackshirt Sith Lord 5 Year Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    2,580
    That's my only concern. Judging intent.

    If they write the rules cleverly, though, they can make it more about accidental collisions versus after-the-fact meanness. If a ball carrier is already out of bounds or sliding and a defender is still on their feet, they should have time to react. You're still gonna have debates on the calls, but that's all sports.

    Nate Gerry's back-to-back targeting calls against Iowa and UCLA are prime examples of how this rule could have resulted in 15yd penalties against Nebraska instead of an ejection of one of our defensive leaders:

    Exhibit A: Nate Gerry vs Iowa
    Gerry is already launching into a tackle when the receiver twists mid-air and brings his helmet directly into Gerry's line of attack. Targeting aside, this was a PHYSICAL tackle, which likely added to the refs' perception of targeting. Gerry wasn't trying to murder the guy. The ball carrier moved into a vulnerable position after the defender already launched into his tackle.


    Exhibit B: Nate Gerry vs UCLA
    This is an even better example of a non-malicious tackle. Gerry has more lead time on his tackle here, and he matches the ball carrier's body language and position. They collide evenly and the hit is clearly not a direct attack to the helmet. Gerry makes an effort to wrap up the defender while they are both upright, plus he also moves his shoulder so that there is not direct helmet-to-helmet contact. He's attempting to push his shoulder towards the ball carrier's face, which to me, shows that he's being even more careful from the last game to make a clean, wrap up tackle without any malice.
     
  6. ksuhusker

    ksuhusker In a tree somewhere 5 Year Member

    Messages:
    4,804
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    I think the use of slow motion on targeting should be removed, they make calls based on what a player did/didn't do in slow mo. Problem being, in slow mo it can look intentional when it says otherwise in regular speed.
    Good post!
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    Vinosker likes this.
  7. RMR

    RMR Walk On Hero 15 Year Member

    Messages:
    4,096
    Likes Received:
    478
    I think it can be the opposite. I often see a slo mo where they turn their head and the helmets come together less abruptly. And targeting still gets called/upheld. But the slow mo removes any thought of intent. I see your point, but I think it works in the reverse more often.

    The real change needs to be the definition of targeting. I think the the play should be stated as under review - without targeting being called. Then decide. Don't make it the default and then replay has to be conclusive that it is not.
     
  8. ksuhusker

    ksuhusker In a tree somewhere 5 Year Member

    Messages:
    4,804
    Likes Received:
    1,008
    Agree on part two, and parts of part 1, I've often seen slow mo make it look worse than the original intent.
     
  9. RMR

    RMR Walk On Hero 15 Year Member

    Messages:
    4,096
    Likes Received:
    478
    You are right. It can look more brutal in slow mo as well. But the point about intent still remains open. The funny thing is - the video of the AM injury showed both brutality and intent. But has been deep 6'd. No authorities within the same realms was moved by it.
     
    Vinosker likes this.
  10. Greatest Fan of All

    Greatest Fan of All The Legend 10 Year Member

    Messages:
    29,660
    Likes Received:
    3,879
    I'm fine with the current rule, I think that it has taken awhile for players, coaches and refs to adjust to the rule and we are seeing fewer instances by players and more consistent enforcement by refs. Changing the rule will add a layer of confusion and controversy that will simply bring more fan complaints...not fewer.

    Also, it might end up with many more penalties called...especially type 1, but no fewer of the type 2's (current rule).
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    Vinosker and Rednu like this.
  11. Huskerthom

    Huskerthom Blackshirt 2 Year Member

    Messages:
    15,664
    Likes Received:
    5,650
    I think by today's standards the first one get's called malicious.
     
    RMR likes this.
  12. bilsker

    bilsker Tom Osborne 15 Year Member

    Messages:
    75,325
    Likes Received:
    15,086
    And that's the problem. You have referees trying to determine intent.
     
  13. The Nth Degree

    The Nth Degree Scout Team 10 Year Member

    Messages:
    4,334
    Likes Received:
    1,048
    A step in the right direction.

    As others have pointed out though, I think that using the word "intent" (intention) implies that officials know what was in the players mind; what that player intended to do. That's very difficult (if not impossible) to determine objectively.

    That said, I think it would be better to just call it level 1 or level 2 targeting. There would need to be clear criteria that would define the "level 2" targeting (that results in ejection). For example the tackler launched themselves, or the tackler had the opportunity to make the tackle low but chose not to, or the tackler could have avoided crown of the helmet to helmet contact but chose not to.

    It's by no means perfect, but I think setting clear observable criteria, and using two levels of targeting (i.e. 1 and 2) would be a step in the right direction.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    DuckTownHusker likes this.
  14. DuckTownHusker

    DuckTownHusker Blackshirt Sith Lord 5 Year Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    2,580
    Right. It's never going to be perfect. But from a logic standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. In the current system, all targeting is targeting. Mandatory ejection. In the proposed new system, you'll have some mis-categorized calls.

    However, consider the impact of categorizing Targeting Calls:
    • T1 categorized as T1: easy call, defender did not intend harm. Result is a more fair call to the defender.
    • T2 categorized as T2: easy call, defender was malicious. Result is no different than the current state of Targeting.
    • T1 mis-categorized as T2: Defender did not intend harm. Result is no different than the current state of Targeting
    • T2 mis-categorized as T1: Defender did intend harm. Result is a less fair call to the offense.

    There are only 4 potential outcomes. We know that all targeting calls are not evenly distributed into these categories, but for statistical purposes, we will accept this assumption. 50% of calls result in the exact same scenario as the status quo. 25% result in a better call and 25% result in a worse call. On paper that looks to be no different of an average outcome that the status quo. Except that a T2 mis-categorized as a T1 should be blatant and obvious. That's the one category that results in a worse outcome, however, it would seem that it's pretty difficult to watch a defender rip a RB's head off and call it an accident.

    It's like the old joke about the definition of porn - hard to put an exact definition around what IS and what IS not, but you'll know it when you see it.

    So on paper, this system will produce exactly the same results (50% even, 25% up, 25% down) but in practice, should skew towards more favorable calls.
     
  15. Row 90

    Row 90 Recruit

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    179
    Agree. First one is ejection-worthy targeting. Second one is a beautiful, legal, tackle.
     

Share This Page