I don't like that targeting call...

[pboiler18]

but...since its been called on us about the last 3 weeks...it was the right call.

The rule is bad, IMO.

Targeting is clear to me. Helmet to helmet with lunging. That said...we have had a ton of shoulder to helmet hits on a sliding or going down offensive player (and what can you do as a defender then?)...as long as that's a rule...call it. They finally did in favor of us.

 

[PaBoiler78]

but...since its been called on us about the last 3 weeks...it was the right call.

The rule is bad, IMO.

Targeting is clear to me. Helmet to helmet with lunging. That said...we have had a ton of shoulder to helmet hits on a sliding or going down offensive player (and what can you do as a defender then?)...as long as that's a rule...call it. They finally did in favor of us.

I'll admit , I didn't like it neither.

 

[punaj]

It a terrible rule. Needs to be investigated. I don’t feel bad for the Wisc guy given the calls on Purdue this year.

 

[punaj]

No, it’s a great rule to protect everyone but it needs to be adjusted.

 

[FirstDownB]

It was the same as the Thieneman call. I didn't like it, but they need to be consistent.

 

[TheBoris]

Targeting must be I*N*T*E*N*T*I*O*N*A*L. That does not mean any time helmets hit. The refs need to be reschooled on this.

 

[punaj]

Targeting must be I*N*T*E*N*T*I*O*N*A*L. That does not mean any time helmets hit. The refs need to be reschooled on this.

Yes

 

[PaBoiler78]

Targeting must be I*N*T*E*N*T*I*O*N*A*L. That does not mean any time helmets hit. The refs need to be reschooled on this.

the defensive guy was going in to corral Herdman, Herman's head went down thus the helmet to helmet. didn't care for the call.

 

[pboiler18]

the defensive guy was going in to corral Herdman, Herman's head went down thus the helmet to helmet.

Right. Intent wasn't bad but result was.

Same as with about every single one we've had called on us.

Especially the Thineman call in the Michigan game.

That was a GREAT hit and there was no helmet to helmet contact or intent.

At some point you gotta let these kids play.

 

[StickPurdue]

Targeting must be I*N*T*E*N*T*I*O*N*A*L. That does not mean any time helmets hit. The refs need to be reschooled on this.

They also have to lead with the helmet, shoulder, hands, or forearm. It's being grossly misinterpreted.

I don't think that should have been called targeting or lead to an ejection, but that's exactly what happened within Thieneman and it was called. The rule needs adjusted, but as it has been called and interpreted, that was an easy and obvious targeting call.

 

[Purdue85]

Targeting must be I*N*T*E*N*T*I*O*N*A*L. That does not mean any time helmets hit. The refs need to be reschooled on this.

THIS.

Too many times the game happens QUICKLY and the defender has no chance to adjust.

Then comes the flag . . . and they screw the kid.

 

[Frankie611]

Targeting must be I*N*T*E*N*T*I*O*N*A*L. That does not mean any time helmets hit. The refs need to be reschooled on this.

Exactly. The word targeting implies the intent to do something. If they are going to call incidental helmet to helmet contact targeting like they did in the Lville game, just change the name of the rule to something else. Targeting to me means you are purposely trying to hurt another player. I would rather see them call targeting for intentional plays even if it is at knees or torsos than just two guys bump helmets, one gets tossed

 

[rgarlitz]

I'm ok with the personal foul in the name of player safety, but I don't like all these ejections.

 

[Purdue85]

I'm ok with the personal foul in the name of player safety, but I don't like all these ejections.

that's a good middle ground: call helmet-to-helmet as a PF, but don't eject unless intentional (and possibly repetitive).

 

[02Boilermaker]

that's a good middle ground: call helmet-to-helmet as a PF, but don't eject unless intentional (and possibly repetitive).

I think targeting is like the elbow flagrant rule in basketball. It's coming from a good place, but the first attempt seems to have gone a little to far. It should get better with each revision to the rule, but it will always be the source of some controversy.

Like basketball, I think targeting could benefit from a Flagrant 1 vs Flagrant 2 type system even if I'm not sure what the definitions would be. If it's "incidental" then make it a 15yd penalty, and make the kid sit the rest of the series. If it's "egregious" then kick the kid out for the game.

 

[pboiler18]

It was undoubtedly a 15 yard penalty but i feel for the kid having to miss the rest of the game.

That said...as per the rules...the hit was targeting.

If it's with the shoulder, it shouldn't be IMO. That said...that would have made the Bentley, Thineman and Neal ejections moot.

The rule needs to be updated. Clear, IMO to judge intent vs result. Shoulder to helmet on a falling receiver is not targeting...but sure...call a late hit. No need to eject a guy for that.

 

[13thman]

Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I saw a few instances today where the replay reversed the targeting call on the field. Hopefully this will be a trend.

 

[pboiler18]

Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I saw a few instances today where the replay reversed the targeting call on the field. Hopefully this will be a trend.

The IU reversal was a bad call IMO.

Scales hit him in the head with a shoulder.

He was just making a play and NOT trying to hit the WR but by the rules definition it was targeting and he should have been gone.

 

[13thman]

The IU reversal was a bad call IMO.

Scales hit him in the head with a shoulder.

He was just making a play and NOT trying to hit the WR but by the rules definition it was targeting and he should have been gone.

Nice 180

 

[pboiler18]

Nice 180

IU sucks!

My comments were more about the rule leaving room for interpretation.

Was it targeting? Probably not...but by the rules...it was..and he should have been gone.

My comment was about the rules needing to be changed!

 

[spradecki]

many times the offensive player is the one who lowers his head and causes the helmet to helmet

 

[70boiler]

Was it targeting? Probably not...but by the rules...it was..and he should have been gone.

My comment was about the rules needing to be changed!

If it was "targeting" by the rules, then, yes, it was "targeting."
Given the information that continues to surface about head injuries I really have no issue with taking the question of intent out of the mix. It seems pretty clear that the application of ejection is designed simply to force coaches to develop and teach new techniques to ensure compliance with the minimization of aggressive contact with the head of the player being hit.
I don't find the concept all that offensive.

 

[Purdue85]

If it was "targeting" by the rules, then, yes, it was "targeting."
Given the information that continues to surface about head injuries I really have no issue with taking the question of intent out of the mix. It seems pretty clear that the application of ejection is designed simply to force coaches to develop and teach new techniques to ensure compliance with the minimization of aggressive contact with the head of the player being hit.
I don't find the concept all that offensive.

"Targeting" implies intent: the defender "targeted" a defenseless player.

Too often, the contact appears to be incidental, but results in a penalty and ejection. That's not appropriate.

Yes, there's concern for head injuries. Yes, measures need to be taken. I don't think that's ever been the debate. The debate seems to be what's appropriate and what's not. Flagging kids when there's incidental helmet-to-helmet contact doesn't seem to be appropriate.

 

[70boiler]

"Targeting" implies intent: the defender "targeted" a defenseless player.

Too often, the contact appears to be incidental, but results in a penalty and ejection. That's not appropriate.

Yes, there's concern for head injuries. Yes, measures need to be taken. I don't think that's ever been the debate. The debate seems to be what's appropriate and what's not. Flagging kids when there's incidental helmet-to-helmet contact doesn't seem to be appropriate.

Regardless of what the common usage may imply, the rule is clear and doesn't require intent. I understand many, including you, don't agree with the rule. That's certainly fine, but it is beyond me why you and others want to argue/discuss the rule by trying to apply a parameter to that simply isn't part of the formula. That just doesn't seem to be a particularly useful direction, and tends to confuse a lot of people as to what the actual rule is. There certainly is plenty to argue about concerning the rule without resorting to attaching things to the rule that aren't part of it.

 

[stout1]

You may want to talk to the NCAA then 70 as their website describes it as a rule to address "players who target and contact defenseless opponents above the shoulders"'.

Sure sounds like both conditions must be met.

 

[Purdue85]

Regardless of what the common usage may imply, the rule is clear and doesn't require intent. I understand many, including you, don't agree with the rule. That's certainly fine, but it is beyond me why you and others want to argue/discuss the rule by trying to apply a parameter to that simply isn't part of the formula. That just doesn't seem to be a particularly useful direction, and tends to confuse a lot of people as to what the actual rule is. There certainly is plenty to argue about concerning the rule without resorting to attaching things to the rule that aren't part of it.

Yeah, we understand all that. Much of what you wrote is inane. You're fine the rule? Great. You're okay with all the players that pour their heart and soul for 9 months . . . then get ejected from a game and have to sit for part of the next, because of something they didn't intend to happen.

It's a good rule, but it's harsh. And it needs to be adjusted.

You disagree. Fine. Move on, if you have nothing of substance to contribute.

There is no argument (at least on my end, but appears to be on yours). The reason for the discussion is there are many people who agree with the rule, but see the need to improve the rule.

The purpose of the rule is quite clear, but even to you is should also be clear it's also penalizing players to a degree that's unnecessary.

What's more, for the life of me I cannot fathom how you can interpret that a group of people, discussing on an internet forum how a rule can be improved, would be construed as not "be(ing in) a particularly useful direction." It's a flippin' internet forum!

Additionally, who is going to be confused by a small contingent of fans discussing the rule and how it could be improved? That's just silly.

Finally, you admit "(t)here is plenty to argue about concerning the rule without resorting to attaching things to the rule that aren't part of it." However, nobody is "attaching" anything. We're simply engaged in discussing the rule, the PURPOSE of the rule, and how the rule can become better.

Your indignation is duly noted, but it appears you are trying to manufacture an argument.

 

[Purdue85]

You may want to talk to the NCAA then 70 as their website describes it as a rule to address "players who target and contact defenseless opponents above the shoulders"'.

Sure sounds like both conditions must be met.

This.

This is why the rule needs to be reviewed and modified.