Was the Young targeting call overturned?
- Thread starter Iluvteak
- Start date
I'd love to be wrong but you aren't getting that one overturned. It's an unduly punitive rule, but I think that hit falls within the rule.
the conference isn't going to throw the refs under the bus unless it's egregious...which means unless the media makes a huge deal about it. The problem is the rule, not how it was applied in this case.
There should be exceptions as to when the defender left his feet at the angle of the offensive player at that exact moment. It is not the fault of the defensive player if they go for a clean hit and the other guy changes his body at the last second. You have zero control over what he does, so why the punishment?
I like the fact that they are trying to make the game safer, but the penalty for this is absolutely insane. Make it a 30 yard penalty for all I care, but don't eject kids for half of a game for a hit that 75% of the time is incidental in regards to helmet to helmet or targeting.
The point is to get the defender to tackle with his head up. As a defender, if you drop your head to lead with the crown, you are at risk of the offensive player going down. If you keep your head up then that's not a penalty even if the offensive player drops low.
He didn’t lead with the crown though. He lead with his shoulder. This was clearly not illegal even within the bad rule. The receiver had become a runner and therefore the contact to the head isn’t relevant. The only thing is if he lead with the crown. He didn’t.
I realize there isn't much room in the rules for trying to determine "intent" but you know a targeting when you see it. We can all think of plays where you've seen a guy load up on a defenseless player and hit them high.
Here, the hit was high. It was. But when you watch the play you can clearly tell he had no intent to target. It was just a bang-bang type deal where he can't necessarily control where his hit lands as the offensive player is in motion and going to ground.
In my mind, just flip the presumption. Give a 15 yard penalty and make all targeting plays subject to league review. If they believe the intent was to load up and hit someone high, sure, suspend them a half. But on a hit like this where any simple review shows he wasn't trying to target shouldn't be grounds for sitting a half.
Good point. Let the suspension decision be made without the pressure of the game going on. Have a committee of expert refs whose decisions (and maybe even deliberations) are made public. Better decision-making process. More accountability. Better enforcement. Ultimately, better rules.
yea that one guy is always sitting behind the announcers during big games. I can't remember which game it was but security came over and stood in that gap until they were done.
I think this would be a good approach with the exception for egregious penalties like late hits that are clearly premeditated. Those should still be automatic ejections
My recollection is that coaches lobbied this past offseason for some kind flagrant 1/flagrant 2 kind of system for targeting, but the administrator folks shot it down.
I think there needs to be a rule against offensive players as well. The WR helmet went down a foot in the last second. Had he stood tall Young hits him in the waist. Same for the poor ruling in San Antonio. Can't keep putting this contact only on the defender. It obviously wasn't intentional for Young to hit him in the head. If he doesn't duck his head would have been right on the ball.
Kind of like when I was in high school. A guy went to punch me in the arm, I ducked, he hit me in the head and broke his hand.
Kind of like when I was in high school. A guy went to punch me in the arm, I ducked, he hit me in the head and broke his hand.
I agree. If the offensive player lowers his head into the defender, the offensive player should be ejected.
