Big 12 media day new "targeting" rule

[CyTilIDy]

So will "Targeting" penalty be just assessed to the defense or would this be defined as "Targeting" by the offense...

[video=youtube;hnWRpn1LUn4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnWRpn1LUn4[/video]

 

[CyTilIDy]

or this when RB lowers his helmet, LJ (the DB) was attempting to get lower...

[video=youtube;NAuUlzWiWyE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAuUlzWiWyE[/video]

Sorry to resurrect the last vid, but it proves a point that this penalty is a 100% judgement call by the officials and can be a game changer since the offending player gets ejected.

Can you imagine the blow back when a highly-touted LB/DB from Texas, the OSU, Alabama, or USC gets the boot from a game for "Targeting"?

 

[shadow]

Reviving original targeting rule thread from 2013 for fun.

Apparently, they've been looking at the college basketball flagrant foul model since close to its beginning. Below are articles from 2015 and 2016. Not sure why this hasn't been adopted yet. I was unable to find an explanation from the rules committee on that.

Below that is a good history on the targeting rule as it has changed over the years.

Inside College Sports: Football's targeting rule needs to be fixed

In this week's edition of Inside College Sports, Jon Solomon looks at college football's targeting rule, which has made the game safer in some aspects but is far from perfect.

www.cbssports.com

American Athletic Conference officiating coordinator Terry McAulay has an idea he plans to resubmit after the season to the NCAA Football Rules Committee: Use college basketball’s flagrant foul model.


Under McAulay’s proposal, which had previously been rejected, there would be Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2 targeting penalties... But so much of the current targeting penalty “is not so black and white,” McAulay said. “It is very inconsistent because even when you look at it in replay, it’s often the difference of an inch or so between targeting and a legal hit.”...

College Football Power Rankings: Tennessee leaps into top 10 as Penn State, Florida State, Kansas join

It was a week of change in the Power Rankings with some surprise unbeatens at the one-third point

www.cbssports.com

Apply college basketball’s flagrant foul model. The American Athletic Conference has a proposal that would create Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2 targeting penalties. Flagrant 1, as determined by replay, would be for a less egregious and perhaps unintentional high hits that would give a player the benefit of the doubt. There would be a 15-yard penalty and the player would remain in the game unless it's his second targeting infraction, which would result in an ejection. Flagrant 2 would follow the current rule of an automatic ejection if it’s a clear targeting play. This model was previously proposed and rejected.

Targeting: The history, the current backlash and the future

Targeting, a rule enacted by the NCAA in 2013 aimed at player safety, is one of the most debated rules in college football.

www.columbiamissourian.com

The NCAA created the targeting rule in 2008, when it became a foul for a player to initiate contact on an opponent with the crown of their helmet. Players were also prohibited from making contact with a defenseless opponent above the shoulders. Targeting was thus added as a personal-foul penalty resulting in a 15-yard loss.

The college football targeting rule was amended in 2013 so that players charged with the penalty would be immediately ejected from the game. If the penalty occurred in the second half, players would be forced to sit out the first half of their next game as well. Replay officials had the power to overturn the penalty ejection, but it wasn’t until 2014 that the penalty being recalled also meant there was no 15-yard loss for the offending team.

In 2019, it became required for referees to confirm or deny a targeting penalty using video review. The rule also was updated to state that players with three targeting penalties in one season may be prone to an additional one-game suspension. Most recently, the rule was changed to allow ejected players to remain on the sideline instead of mandating that they leave the stadium.

 

[Clonefan94]

Reviving original targeting rule thread from 2013 for fun.

Apparently, they've been looking at the college basketball flagrant foul model since close to its beginning. Below are articles from 2015 and 2016. Not sure why this hasn't been adopted yet. I was unable to find an explanation from the rules committee on that.

Below that is a good history on the targeting rule as it has changed over the years.

Inside College Sports: Football's targeting rule needs to be fixed

In this week's edition of Inside College Sports, Jon Solomon looks at college football's targeting rule, which has made the game safer in some aspects but is far from perfect.

www.cbssports.com

College Football Power Rankings: Tennessee leaps into top 10 as Penn State, Florida State, Kansas join

It was a week of change in the Power Rankings with some surprise unbeatens at the one-third point

www.cbssports.com

Targeting: The history, the current backlash and the future

Targeting, a rule enacted by the NCAA in 2013 aimed at player safety, is one of the most debated rules in college football.

www.columbiamissourian.com

Honestly, I don't like the targeting rule as it stand now. I don't think it gives enough leeway to a defensive play when an offensive player is lowering his head and or shoulders. I especially think the rule is really stupid when we are talking about a running back driving through the line into a pile.

That being said, how the rule sits now is beside the point to me. No matter how you call it, be consistent. You can't review one and not another for the same style of tackle. During review, it's obviously a judgement call and whatever is decided is decided. My biggest gripe is they review the one early on us, but then don't touch the button again for the rest of the game.

 

[MeowingCows]

Targeting rules, as implemented now, make no sense at all from a player safety standpoint. Offensive players can lead with the head down at will and defenders cannot get down low with them without also putting their own heads in danger (or, you know, being tossed from the game). There's no recourse for a defender except getting trucked.

Also, the booth-initiated reviews are just awful. Terrible for game flow and also don't make any sense. Why can we retroactively, severely alter the game just for this one penalty, but not others?

 

[Cyclonepride]

Targeting with disqualification should be limited to circumstances where there is clear and egregious intent. Anything that is truly bad form or avoidable should be a personal foul, and there should be some criteria in there for incidental contact with no penalty at all.

 

[shadow]

Targeting rules, as implemented now, make no sense at all from a player safety standpoint. Offensive players can lead with the head down at will and defenders cannot get down low with them without also putting their own heads in danger (or, you know, being tossed from the game). There's no recourse for a defender except getting trucked.

Also, the booth-initiated reviews are just awful. Terrible for game flow and also don't make any sense. Why can we retroactively, severely alter the game just for this one penalty, but not others?

I'm at the point where I think booth initiated reviews should be abolished other than scoring plays and each coach should get 3-4 challenges per game where they can challenge anything (e.g. penalty, a call, etc.).

 

[alarson]

I'm at the point where I think booth initiated reviews should be abolished other than scoring plays and each coach should get 3-4 challenges per game where they can challenge anything (e.g. penalty, a call, etc.).

I don't know that i'd go that far, but I think they need to be schooled on what "indisputable" is for a lot of these replays is, or change how we do replay.

If we want the officials in the booth to just look at the play and make their best guess, lets do that. If we only want calls to be overturned if there is indisputable evidence, then lets do that. Its pretty inconsistent which one we do. But its clear that if it takes 10 minutes to look at a play, there's plenty to dispute and the call should stand on the field.

 

[AuH2O]

Targeting rules, as implemented now, make no sense at all from a player safety standpoint. Offensive players can lead with the head down at will and defenders cannot get down low with them without also putting their own heads in danger (or, you know, being tossed from the game). There's no recourse for a defender except getting trucked.

Also, the booth-initiated reviews are just awful. Terrible for game flow and also don't make any sense. Why can we retroactively, severely alter the game just for this one penalty, but not others?

Watch Drake Stoops catch a pass. His first move in traffic is to go down and put his head down. And he’s not an outlier at all. Watch most RBs finish runs. Slot receivers and RBs overwhelmingly create most of the head and neck injury risk with these two actions. If they actually want to improve safety of the game start penalizing offensive players for this.

 

[MeowingCows]

I don't know that i'd go that far, but I think they need to be schooled on what "indisputable" is for a lot of these replays is, or change how we do replay.

If we want the officials in the booth to just look at the play and make their best guess, lets do that. If we only want calls to be overturned if there is indisputable evidence, then lets do that. Its pretty inconsistent which one we do. But its clear that if it takes 10 minutes to look at a play, there's plenty to dispute and the call should stand on the field.

I'd do away with "indisputable" entirely. I'd rather any review throw out the call on the field (from the replay perspective) and instead make the correct call based on the evidence they see, or the play stands if a consensus cannot be met among officials.

Also, they should be timeboxed, if they aren't already. 3 minutes tops.

 

[OnlyCyclones]

If you want everyone to form tackle, get rid of pads.

Otherwise accept that in a game of inches when the ball carrier isn’t defenseless and both men are trying to get low, that occasionally this contact will happen. Much easier than choosing arbitrarily what plays to review and who to eject for hits that happen every game.

 

[3TrueFans]

If you want everyone to form tackle, get rid of pads.

Otherwise accept that in a game of inches when the ball carrier isn’t defenseless and both men are trying to get low, that occasionally this contact will happen. Much easier than choosing arbitrarily what plays to review and who to eject for hits that happen every game.

It's a double edged sword, as you make pads and helmets better for safety it just makes it more appealing to use your helmet as a weapon. Nobody is torpedoing in head first for a knockout blow if they don't have a nice safe helmet protecting their noggin.

 

[madguy30]

Watch Drake Stoops catch a pass. His first move in traffic is to go down and put his head down. And he’s not an outlier at all. Watch most RBs finish runs. Slot receivers and RBs overwhelmingly create most of the head and neck injury risk with these two actions. If they actually want to improve safety of the game start penalizing offensive players for this.

It would be really hard to coach that as it's pretty natural to button up to brace for the contact.

 

[AuH2O]

It would be really hard to coach that as it's pretty natural to button up to brace for the contact.

It’s a lot easier to coach that than to coach defensive players to defy the laws of physics, which half the time these dimwit officials expect them to do.

 

[Inthesystem]

I don't know that i'd go that far, but I think they need to be schooled on what "indisputable" is for a lot of these replays is, or change how we do replay.

If we want the officials in the booth to just look at the play and make their best guess, lets do that. If we only want calls to be overturned if there is indisputable evidence, then lets do that. Its pretty inconsistent which one we do. But its clear that if it takes 10 minutes to look at a play, there's plenty to dispute and the call should stand on the field.

This will be my annual comment where I say I despise instant replay for officials' calls.

It's an amazing time suck and they often blow the calls anyway.

 

[CYme]

Why not just paint that easily rubs off the crown of the helmet? See if there was real contact. C'mon engineers, get us a solution. Force activated light up crowns? There has to be a solution.

 

[VeloClone]

Targeting rules, as implemented now, make no sense at all from a player safety standpoint. Offensive players can lead with the head down at will and defenders cannot get down low with them without also putting their own heads in danger (or, you know, being tossed from the game). There's no recourse for a defender except getting trucked.

Also, the booth-initiated reviews are just awful. Terrible for game flow and also don't make any sense. Why can we retroactively, severely alter the game just for this one penalty, but not others?

Or defenders can get really low instead of wrapping up the tackle which opens up the opportunity for the offensive player to hurdle the defender and continue running.