It had to be called as it's the letter of the law, but it shouldn't be targeting when the runner lowers his head to draw the contact. And it went both ways as our guy lowered his head drawing the targeting foul on them just like the BYU guy lowered his head drawing the foul on us.

I hate the rule. However, I never played football. I get that they are trying to protect the players, but I would be curious to know what players think of the rule. Seems like an ejection is too harsh.

Accumulate penalties over the season.

1st targeting call on a player: 15 yard penalty
2nd targeting: 15 + ejection + next two quarters ejection
3rd targeting: 15 + ejection for game + next game half if during second half of current game
4th targeting: 15 + ejection for this game and next
5th targeting: suspension for season

GameFAQSAggie wrote: ↑

September 29th, 2022, 10:57 pm

It had to be called as it's the letter of the law, but it shouldn't be targeting when the runner lowers his head to draw the contact. And it went both ways as our guy lowered his head drawing the targeting foul on them just like the BYU guy lowered his head drawing the foul on us.

I absolutely agree. If both players are lowering their head it should not be targeting. There should be a targeting zone, like the hit must take place 4 feet off the ground or higher.

As the rule currently stands, every running back should be intentionally targeting the defense in every play.

rAggie wrote: ↑

September 30th, 2022, 12:10 am

Accumulate penalties over the season.

1st targeting call on a player: 15 yard penalty
2nd targeting: 15 + ejection + next two quarters ejection
3rd targeting: 15 + ejection for game + next game half if during second half of current game
4th targeting: 15 + ejection for this game and next
5th targeting: suspension for season

that feels way too lax, especially given the potential for significant harm to both the victim and the perp
I wonder what the frequency of someone flagged/ejected being a repeat offender.

I'd go more like 2 quarter suspension for first
then game for second
and season for third

I believe the rule refers to using the top of the helmet to hit another players helmet. Certainly there is an injury ingredient in this contact sport, but common bulldog sense must prevail. Just watch the ball carrier and the defensive player and you will see a tucking reflex on both sides of the ball, as was obvious in our game on Thursday. Making a natural reflex a penalty is a stretch.

As a ball carrier I can guarantee I routinely tucked my head upon contact, and when tackling, I used my shoulders, as I was coached. Later on, when I coached the defense, I emphasized tackling with the shoulders to minimize injury.

The rule is ridiculous and only encourages the offense to lower their heads. Free yards if called.

Targeting needs to be replaced with rugby rules. For get all the judgment call about lowering the head. You make no wrap tackles illegal and penalize that. Easier to judge and you can't lead with the crown of the helmet and wrap up. Promotes safety and better technique. Lose some highlight hits, but those are garbage technique and killing the game.

well, if you saw the lsu/auburn - it's evident why the rule is there.
when I was helping coach 5/6 grade tackle we taught
DO NOT LEAD WITH THE CROWN - it will eventually put you in the hospital.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... -vs-auburn

As a former defense player here is how I wish it was written.

Can only be targeting on an unaggressive player. IE a WR catching a ball looking at the ball not the defender and top of defender helmet hits neck and head area. Crack block on a defender looking in. Like wise if lowering of the head with forcefully intent. Think RB coming downhill on safeties. Saw this in the TCU Oklahoma game and they OK DB had to be carted off the field.

Also Facemasking needs to be adjusted to offense players not being able to touch the face mask of defenders or get it rid of it when both players touch it.

Sent from my SM-A526U using Tapatalk

It amazes me every time I watch games over the weekend how inconsistently the targeting penalty is called. Even when it goes to the booth. There was a targeting call from a Boise safety on a SDSU player. It was ruled to not be targeting. I also remember the targeting against Weber that was overturned. It is just insane.

GeoAg wrote: ↑

October 2nd, 2022, 9:12 am

Targeting needs to be replaced with rugby rules. For get all the judgment call about lowering the head. You make no wrap tackles illegal and penalize that. Easier to judge and you can't lead with the crown of the helmet and wrap up. Promotes safety and better technique. Lose some highlight hits, but those are garbage technique and killing the game.

Agreed..

Based on no update- did the Hall appeal turn out unfavorable? Their guy was approved on a fairly similar hit.

newhouse9 wrote: ↑

October 3rd, 2022, 8:27 am

GeoAg wrote: ↑

October 2nd, 2022, 9:12 am

Targeting needs to be replaced with rugby rules. For get all the judgment call about lowering the head. You make no wrap tackles illegal and penalize that. Easier to judge and you can't lead with the crown of the helmet and wrap up. Promotes safety and better technique. Lose some highlight hits, but those are garbage technique and killing the game.

Agreed..

It would change the whole scope of the game and not in a good way. No wrap tackles are not always bad technique. Going low on the legs is critical for leverage on DBs taking on RBs or TEs. Other situations you are being blocked in a way you just need to throw your body in there. Are you going to review every hit to determine whether a wrap up was attempted. The problem with Rugby tackles is that the nature of football is to use those shoulder pads as weapons to stop momentum and to intimidate with the hits. Depending on your angle you can give up critical feet or yards with a Rugby tackle while in other situations you can use it to rotate the ball position away from a first down or TD. Depends on your angle. You are usually wrapping up of course but every tackle and angle varies along with the way you are being blocked. Sometimes you just need to find a way to make contact and a play.

The other thing is the offensive rules once again. Are you going to let RBs lower their heads but you can't. They aren't wrapping anything up. On the other hand have you seen what happens to a RB when he runs straight up? How do you think you cut block? Since you can't wrap up on a cut block you are always going down with that shoulder pad and helmet. All you are doing is making defenders tentative and tentative play means more injuries.

With the stupid target rules Defenders already have enough to worry about. I get what you are saying. There is a lot of bad technique where guys don't break down and wrap up but penalizing it is silly. Get rid of the target rules and go back to the old spearing penalty. If you lead with your neck out and speer intentionally call it. Everything else is fair game as football was intended. Stop ruining football. We keep forgetting its supposed to be a physical game of intimidation based on the shoulder pads that rugby players don't have.

My biggest problem with the targeting rule is that it isn't enforced fairly between offense and defense. Generally, a ball carrier can duck their head and drill a defender but the defender can't do the same. And if both players duck their head, the foul is on the defender.
If the goal is to eliminate players using their helmet as a primary contact point, the rule needs to be enforced the same on offense and defense.

AGinNEIowa wrote: ↑

October 2nd, 2022, 9:37 am

well, if you saw the lsu/auburn - it's evident why the rule is there.
when I was helping coach 5/6 grade tackle we taught
DO NOT LEAD WITH THE CROWN - it will eventually put you in the hospital.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... -vs-auburn

Perfect, but tragic, example of leading with the crown:

Targeting needs to be a very serious infraction, and the rule should be re-written as a two-way rule.

Offensive players lead with the crown of the helmet too and it really needs to stop.

My cousin's childhood friend suffered severe spinal cord damage back in the "pre-targeting" days playing PEE WEE Football.

Sadly his injury occurred on a seemingly typical play as he was merely blocking. As a result, he spent the remainder of his life in a wheelchair.

No game should be worth that.

Offensive targeting is not as prevalent as defensive targeting, but if a 6-6, 315 lb. OL pulls, gets a full head of steam, and leads with the crown of his helmet, honestly what in the world is the difference?

The purpose and understanding of the rule should be to protect ALL players. Not just defenseless offensive players.

Sadly, concussions and CTE are an unfortunate reality of Tackle Football at all levels One day it may kill the sport..

So I am 100% in favor of any and all rule changes that would teach kids from an early age not to lead with the crown of the helmet. Period.

Interestingly, Rugby seems to have figured this out. Perhaps, specifically due to the lack of unbelievable helmet technology and protection, Rugby players must learn very early not to take on an opponent up around the chest, shoulders, or head. No one wants to run into full speed head-to-head contact without a helmet.

Rugby players shoot for the tackle with their hips low and aiming for a flex point on their opponents body. Almost more of a wrestling takedown move.

After shooting for the hips and bringing the ball carrier's hips close to the shoulder area, they simply use their body momentum, and that of the ball carrier to roll him to the ground.

Pete Carroll has taught his teams much about this roll tackle technique.

Maybe it is time to move back to leather helmets?