Targeting or not targeting

This forum is for Football related topics only. Other topics will be moved to the appropriate forum.
Aggiefever
Posts: 91
Joined: November 6th, 2010, 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Targeting or not targeting

Post by Aggiefever » September 12th, 2019, 2:16 pm

I didn’t think that the hit was intentional but it was defiantly helmet to helmet. Based on the rule, I thought that the player should be ejected (I feel like his coach should have sat him the rest of the game because of his attitude after the hit). I would be fine with the ref choosing to not call targeting if they were more consistent.



User avatar
TheAKAggie
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY
Posts: 6360
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 10:21 pm
Location: Hyde Park, UT
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 592 times
Contact:

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by TheAKAggie » September 12th, 2019, 2:33 pm

Left feet, crown to the face, no idea why it wasn’t, other than they watched it in slow motion. I think all reviews other than goal line and out of bounds should be played at full speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hail Aggies!

User avatar
thegreendalegelf
Posts: 993
Joined: August 18th, 2017, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 969 times
Been thanked: 327 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by thegreendalegelf » September 12th, 2019, 3:05 pm

TheAKAggie wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 2:33 pm
Left feet, crown to the face, no idea why it wasn’t, other than they watched it in slow motion. I think all reviews other than goal line and out of bounds should be played at full speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If we are going to stop the game, might as well get the call right and use slow motion.



User avatar
BigBlueDart
Pick'em Champ - '17 FB Predict the Score
Posts: 9091
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 7:57 am
Location: Syracuse, UT
Has thanked: 252 times
Been thanked: 1027 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by BigBlueDart » September 12th, 2019, 3:27 pm

I'm going off on a tangent, but why are replay reviews synchronizing video from multiple camera angles? It seems like there is always one angle where you see the ball break the plane, and another angle where you see the knee go down. If those videos were synced the refs could easily know which happened first.
These users thanked the author BigBlueDart for the post:
thegreendalegelf



sneed
Posts: 923
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 2:32 am
Has thanked: 896 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by sneed » September 12th, 2019, 7:48 pm

BigBlueDart wrote:I'm going off on a tangent, but why are replay reviews synchronizing video from multiple camera angles? It seems like there is always one angle where you see the ball break the plane, and another angle where you see the knee go down. If those videos were synced the refs could easily know which happened first.
They refs do synchronize them to determine touchdowns / first downs etc.



User avatar
TheAKAggie
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY
Posts: 6360
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 10:21 pm
Location: Hyde Park, UT
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 592 times
Contact:

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by TheAKAggie » September 12th, 2019, 8:00 pm

thegreendalegelf wrote:
TheAKAggie wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 2:33 pm
Left feet, crown to the face, no idea why it wasn’t, other than they watched it in slow motion. I think all reviews other than goal line and out of bounds should be played at full speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If we are going to stop the game, might as well get the call right and use slow motion.
But they’re not always right. And when you slow it down it changes the way things look, takes the ferociousness out of hits, makes a wobble look like loss of control, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hail Aggies!

NavyBlueAggie
Posts: 3065
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 747 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by NavyBlueAggie » September 12th, 2019, 8:58 pm

Targeting is many times a selective call. For all who have played the game at any level, consider the defender launching properly at the ball carrier. The ball carrier sees the impending contact approaching and drops his head to meet the oncoming contact. Between the tackles this happens on virtually every lineman or linebacker involved play.

Many times the contact is helmet to helmet and not spearing, as we once called that event. Certainly the blatant leading with the helmet to hammer the opponents helmet should be flagged, but how many times do we see a rocketing helmet to body tackle that doesn't get anything but oohs and aahs from the fans? Targeting needs to be defined beyond simple suspicion as far as I see the game.



pilotaggie
Posts: 1317
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 6:53 pm
Has thanked: 113 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by pilotaggie » September 12th, 2019, 11:24 pm

TheAKAggie wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 8:00 pm
thegreendalegelf wrote:
TheAKAggie wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 2:33 pm
Left feet, crown to the face, no idea why it wasn’t, other than they watched it in slow motion. I think all reviews other than goal line and out of bounds should be played at full speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If we are going to stop the game, might as well get the call right and use slow motion.
But they’re not always right. And when you slow it down it changes the way things look, takes the ferociousness out of hits, makes a wobble look like loss of control, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One of the games I watched last weekend was talking about this. The announcer made it sound as though the refs had to watch it in real time at least once to see it again.


This post is likely straight up poor sarcasm and cannot be taken seriously.

User avatar
Full
Posts: 2482
Joined: April 27th, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Davis County
Has thanked: 706 times
Been thanked: 416 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by Full » September 13th, 2019, 6:15 am



This is the NCAA training for the new targeting rule and it’s really good at explaining the new rule. I can’t say for sure what they saw, because I haven’t gone back and watched the game.



Usu0505
Posts: 1154
Joined: March 12th, 2018, 6:51 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 337 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by Usu0505 » September 13th, 2019, 7:13 am

The issue I had was the DB clapping after the hit while our guy laid motionless on the field. Their whole sideline seemed happy that one of our guys was down. Not classy at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These users thanked the author Usu0505 for the post:
tysteve20



sneed
Posts: 923
Joined: November 16th, 2010, 2:32 am
Has thanked: 896 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by sneed » September 13th, 2019, 7:47 am

Usu0505 wrote:The issue I had was the DB clapping after the hit while our guy laid motionless on the field. Their whole sideline seemed happy that one of our guys was down. Not classy at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He got a flag for that too though - they didn’t take that back because it wasn’t targeting.



Usu0505
Posts: 1154
Joined: March 12th, 2018, 6:51 pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 337 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by Usu0505 » September 13th, 2019, 7:56 am

That makes it ok?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



bwcrc
Posts: 682
Joined: November 7th, 2013, 12:24 pm
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 483 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by bwcrc » September 13th, 2019, 8:40 am

I was watching the Army vs. Michigan game last Saturday and a player was disqualified for targeting that I thought was bogus. It was only helmet-to-helmet because the offensive player was tripped up by another defensive player a fraction of a second before the player that was disqualified made contact with the offensive player. But for that, the player that was disqualified would have made contact with the offensive player around the numbers. The announcers acknowledged the there was nothing the disqualified player could do in that scenario, but it was a correct application of the rule. Based on that, I thought the SB player would have definitely been disqualified for targeting.

I get the need for the rule and I doubt most people would object to the purpose. However, application and enforcement of the rule seems to be entirely subjective without any consistency. That subjectivity and complete inconsistency are probably where most of us have a problem.



User avatar
Full
Posts: 2482
Joined: April 27th, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Davis County
Has thanked: 706 times
Been thanked: 416 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by Full » September 13th, 2019, 8:53 am

Usu0505 wrote:That makes it ok?
A unsportsmanlike conduct penalty means it is specifically not ok. I went and looked at the play. It’s at 33:50 left on the Facebook archived game or 11:55 left in the 4th quarter. Live action it looked like targeting. I don’t know how they didn’t uphold the targeting call. That looks like a crouch followed by leading with the helmet at an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact with the head or neck area, even though both feet are on the ground.



NavyBlueAggie
Posts: 3065
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 747 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by NavyBlueAggie » September 13th, 2019, 10:00 am

Usu0505 wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 7:13 am
The issue I had was the DB clapping after the hit while our guy laid motionless on the field. Their whole sideline seemed happy that one of our guys was down. Not classy at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right on!!! No class and our guy was on the turf. Bush league and he did get a flag for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.



NavyBlueAggie
Posts: 3065
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 747 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by NavyBlueAggie » September 13th, 2019, 10:05 am

Understand the bit about leading with the helmet, but what else would he lead with? Honestly,,,what else would he anatomically lead with?
These users thanked the author NavyBlueAggie for the post:
Cast Iron Aggie



User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 418
Joined: December 11th, 2018, 7:10 pm
Has thanked: 268 times
Been thanked: 278 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by Turtle » September 13th, 2019, 10:36 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 10:05 am
Understand the bit about leading with the helmet, but what else would he lead with? Honestly,,,what else would he anatomically lead with?
Pelvis? That would make for some interesting tackles



User avatar
jeffdan25
Posts: 155
Joined: June 11th, 2019, 8:37 am
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 107 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by jeffdan25 » September 13th, 2019, 12:32 pm

NavyBlueAggie wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 10:05 am
Understand the bit about leading with the helmet, but what else would he lead with? Honestly,,,what else would he anatomically lead with?
Your shoulder. You never ever lead with your head these days. No ONE! teaches any kind of tackling head first anymore. If done properly outside shoulder to near hip tackles are the absolute most effective. Also prevents head injuries. Rugby tackle, Hawk tackle these are examples that everyone teaches. the head and neck should be completely out of the play.
These users thanked the author jeffdan25 for the post:
Cast Iron Aggie



hickaggie
Posts: 3989
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 845 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by hickaggie » September 13th, 2019, 2:20 pm

jeffdan25 wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 12:32 pm
NavyBlueAggie wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 10:05 am
Understand the bit about leading with the helmet, but what else would he lead with? Honestly,,,what else would he anatomically lead with?
Your shoulder. You never ever lead with your head these days. No ONE! teaches any kind of tackling head first anymore. If done properly outside shoulder to near hip tackles are the absolute most effective. Also prevents head injuries. Rugby tackle, Hawk tackle these are examples that everyone teaches. the head and neck should be completely out of the play.
No, you aren't leading with your head but you are sliding the facemask to the side and all it takes is the runner cutting slightly or turning his head and bringing it down. And when you are firing out low as a lineman their are always gonna be some head several times a game as guy opposite you is going low and everyone guessing as to what gap and assignments will determine direction.

Targeting should be confined to extreme examples. In other words limited to the old rule of spearing before all the BS that's destroying the game. The worst part is the Defender almost always is the one punished. Lets get back to old school football. The defenseless player rule is the biggest bs part. If you don't intentionally spear, hit late, horse collar, grab the face mask or do something cheap after the whistle then everything else needs to be allowed. And don't get me into the protection of QBs, The NFL is almost unwatchable for that and college is getting bad enough.
These users thanked the author hickaggie for the post:
Cast Iron Aggie



NavyBlueAggie
Posts: 3065
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 397 times
Been thanked: 747 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by NavyBlueAggie » September 13th, 2019, 9:34 pm

Spot on Hickaggie and solid comments on a number of subjects!!!!. Insightful about QB protection techniques which get but little attention from the officials. Five stars for your observations. From High School on we were always tutored to never bury our heads in the other player. When I coached, the rule was to slide your helmet to the side of the player you were tackling.



User avatar
usugoalie13
Posts: 457
Joined: May 3rd, 2012, 5:05 pm
Location: logan utah/ edmonton alberta
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 91 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by usugoalie13 » September 13th, 2019, 11:21 pm

bwcrc wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 8:40 am
I was watching the Army vs. Michigan game last Saturday and a player was disqualified for targeting that I thought was bogus. It was only helmet-to-helmet because the offensive player was tripped up by another defensive player a fraction of a second before the player that was disqualified made contact with the offensive player. But for that, the player that was disqualified would have made contact with the offensive player around the numbers. The announcers acknowledged the there was nothing the disqualified player could do in that scenario, but it was a correct application of the rule. Based on that, I thought the SB player would have definitely been disqualified for targeting.

I get the need for the rule and I doubt most people would object to the purpose. However, application and enforcement of the rule seems to be entirely subjective without any consistency. That subjectivity and complete inconsistency are probably where most of us have a problem.
I watched that game too, frustrating to watch. The ruling was that he was knocked off balance so he became a defenseless player. How is the player that followed it up with a hit supposed to stop himself when he is already making the tackle when the guy is knocked off balance. I hate judgement calls, but targeting needs to be a judgement call.



User avatar
TheAKAggie
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY
Posts: 6360
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 10:21 pm
Location: Hyde Park, UT
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 592 times
Contact:

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by TheAKAggie » September 14th, 2019, 12:16 am

hickaggie wrote:
jeffdan25 wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 12:32 pm
NavyBlueAggie wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 10:05 am
Understand the bit about leading with the helmet, but what else would he lead with? Honestly,,,what else would he anatomically lead with?
Your shoulder. You never ever lead with your head these days. No ONE! teaches any kind of tackling head first anymore. If done properly outside shoulder to near hip tackles are the absolute most effective. Also prevents head injuries. Rugby tackle, Hawk tackle these are examples that everyone teaches. the head and neck should be completely out of the play.
No, you aren't leading with your head but you are sliding the facemask to the side and all it takes is the runner cutting slightly or turning his head and bringing it down. And when you are firing out low as a lineman their are always gonna be some head several times a game as guy opposite you is going low and everyone guessing as to what gap and assignments will determine direction.

Targeting should be confined to extreme examples. In other words limited to the old rule of spearing before all the BS that's destroying the game. The worst part is the Defender almost always is the one punished. Lets get back to old school football. The defenseless player rule is the biggest bs part. If you don't intentionally spear, hit late, horse collar, grab the face mask or do something cheap after the whistle then everything else needs to be allowed. And don't get me into the protection of QBs, The NFL is almost unwatchable for that and college is getting bad enough.
Yeah, these weenies. It’s not like we’re discovering the dehabilitating injuries occur after repeated hits to the head. These people and not wanting their brain turned to mush!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hail Aggies!

NVAggie
SJSU Ultimate Loser Award Winner - Given to someone that should probably give up but won't.
Posts: 23316
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am
Location: Where the sagebrush grows!
Has thanked: 1397 times
Been thanked: 3125 times

Re: Targeting or not targeting

Post by NVAggie » September 14th, 2019, 8:29 am

No, they just don't want lawsuits. They don't care about the players playing the game.



Locked Previous topicNext topic