Football Home Game
Sat, August 31, 2024
Sat, August 31, 2024
Basketball Home Game
Fri, November 1, 2024
Fri, November 1, 2024
Targeting or not targeting
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: November 6th, 2010, 1:15 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 41 times
Targeting or not targeting
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.
- 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
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hail Aggies!
- thegreendalegelf
- Posts: 993
- Joined: August 18th, 2017, 3:26 pm
- Has thanked: 969 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Re: Targeting or not targeting
If we are going to stop the game, might as well get the call right and use slow motion.TheAKAggie wrote: ↑September 12th, 2019, 2:33 pmLeft 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
- 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
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
Re: Targeting or not targeting
They refs do synchronize them to determine touchdowns / first downs etc.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.
- 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
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.thegreendalegelf wrote:If we are going to stop the game, might as well get the call right and use slow motion.TheAKAggie wrote: ↑September 12th, 2019, 2:33 pmLeft 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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hail Aggies!
-
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
- Has thanked: 397 times
- Been thanked: 747 times
Re: Targeting or not targeting
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: November 13th, 2010, 6:53 pm
- Has thanked: 113 times
- Been thanked: 245 times
Re: Targeting or not targeting
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.TheAKAggie wrote: ↑September 12th, 2019, 8:00 pmBut 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.thegreendalegelf wrote:If we are going to stop the game, might as well get the call right and use slow motion.TheAKAggie wrote: ↑September 12th, 2019, 2:33 pmLeft 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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This post is likely straight up poor sarcasm and cannot be taken seriously.
- 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
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.
-
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: March 12th, 2018, 6:51 pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
Re: Targeting or not targeting
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Targeting or not targeting
He got a flag for that too though - they didn’t take that back because it wasn’t targeting.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
Re: Targeting or not targeting
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 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.
- 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
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.Usu0505 wrote:That makes it ok?
-
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
- Has thanked: 397 times
- Been thanked: 747 times
Re: Targeting or not targeting
Right on!!! No class and our guy was on the turf. Bush league and he did get a flag for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
-
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
- Has thanked: 397 times
- Been thanked: 747 times
Re: Targeting or not targeting
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
- Turtle
- Posts: 418
- Joined: December 11th, 2018, 7:10 pm
- Has thanked: 268 times
- Been thanked: 278 times
Re: Targeting or not targeting
Pelvis? That would make for some interesting tacklesNavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑September 13th, 2019, 10:05 amUnderstand the bit about leading with the helmet, but what else would he lead with? Honestly,,,what else would he anatomically lead with?
Re: Targeting or not targeting
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.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑September 13th, 2019, 10:05 amUnderstand 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 jeffdan25 for the post:
- Cast Iron Aggie
-
- Posts: 3989
- Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
- Has thanked: 90 times
- Been thanked: 845 times
Re: Targeting or not targeting
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.jeffdan25 wrote: ↑September 13th, 2019, 12:32 pmYour 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.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑September 13th, 2019, 10:05 amUnderstand the bit about leading with the helmet, but what else would he lead with? Honestly,,,what else would he anatomically lead with?
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
-
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
- Has thanked: 397 times
- Been thanked: 747 times
Re: Targeting or not targeting
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.
- 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
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.bwcrc wrote: ↑September 13th, 2019, 8:40 amI 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.
- 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
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!hickaggie wrote: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.jeffdan25 wrote: ↑September 13th, 2019, 12:32 pmYour 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.NavyBlueAggie wrote: ↑September 13th, 2019, 10:05 amUnderstand the bit about leading with the helmet, but what else would he lead with? Honestly,,,what else would he anatomically lead with?
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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hail Aggies!
-
- 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
No, they just don't want lawsuits. They don't care about the players playing the game.