Big 12 media day new "targeting" rule

[Daserop]

Been listening to the new targeting rule and how they determine when a player is targeting. The main theme to me was the lower you get (further away from the head) the less likely you will get called for targeting. One situation that was not brought up was when a receiver is 5' 7" and a 6' 2" linebacker goes to tackle him. It is kind of hard for a 6' 2" linebacker to get lower than a 5' 7" receiver.

There was a gentlemen who questioned about where the line is between targeting and non-targeting. He showed an example and said that this person would be targeting and to become non-targeting he needed to be 2-3 inches lower.

Also, if you are guily of "targeting" you are disqualified from the game!


Personally, I think this will just make things more complicated.

 

[IcSyU]

Facemask stays up -> Shouldn't be targeting...that's just a fundamental tackle
Crown of helmet -> Targeting

 

[ChrisMWilliams]

People are going to ***** and moan about this like you wouldn't believe. Having said that, with all of these new rules and pressure that officials are facing, it's going to go from being a thankless job to an impossible job.

 

[mkcrawford]

I don't know about this...it leaves a lot up to the judgement of an official with significant consequences (DQ). Would this be reviewable?

 

[megamanxzero35]

I don't know about this...it leaves a lot up to the judgement of an official with significant consequences (DQ). Would this be reviewable?

Yes. DQ plays are reviewed. Penalty still applies but player won't be DQ.

 

[ChiClones]

I don't know about this...it leaves a lot up to the judgement of an official with significant consequences (DQ). Would this be reviewable?

Yes...at least anything resulting in an ejection can be reviewed/overturned. Expect to see a lot of flags/reviews.

 

[Judoka]

[video=youtube;ENuZHnQlqX0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENuZHnQlqX0[/video]

Every time I see this hit I can't believe how it could be an illegal tackle under the new rules. It is a very violent hit but that's because the Michigan O-line screwed up and you had two guys running full speed at each other. It is as clean as can be and it isn't Clowney's fault that the Michigan guy didn't have his helmet properly tightened down. How could Clowney have possibly made that tackle more clean?

 

[Daserop]

People are going to ***** and moan about this like you wouldn't believe. Having said that, with all of these new rules and pressure that officials are facing, it's going to go from being a thankless job to an impossible job.

can't agree more, when I was listening the more I was thankful that I wasn't a football official.

 

[Bigman38]

Been listening to the new targeting rule and how they determine when a player is targeting. The main theme to me was the lower you get (further away from the head) the less likely you will get called for targeting. One situation that was not brought up was when a receiver is 5' 7" and a 6' 2" linebacker goes to tackle him. It is kind of hard for a 6' 2" linebacker to get lower than a 5' 7" receiver.

There was a gentlemen who questioned about where the line is between targeting and non-targeting. He showed an example and said that this person would be targeting and to become non-targeting he needed to be 2-3 inches lower.

Also, if you are guily of "targeting" you are disqualified from the game!


Personally, I think this will just make things more complicated.

This is almost impossible for refs to get right on the fly, it's going to be a big factor in some games this year. I'm just hoping it doesn't affect any ISU games.

 

[cycloneinpdx]

[video=youtube;ENuZHnQlqX0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENuZHnQlqX0[/video]

Every time I see this hit I can't believe how it could be an illegal tackle under the new rules. It is a very violent hit but that's because the Michigan O-line screwed up and you had two guys running full speed at each other. It is as clean as can be and it isn't Clowney's fault that the Michigan guy didn't have his helmet properly tightened down. How could Clowney have possibly made that tackle more clean?

Yeah, watching that again, it looks like a pretty good form tackle. Even if it was poor form, how could you show intent to injure on such a snap play like that (which the term "targeting" implies, imo)?

I can understand a safety lining up someone across the middle, but you can't eject a guy for an honest, poor form tackle with no intent.

 

[colbycheese]

Mike and Mike talked about this quite a bit last week. They raised the question about what if a receiver saw they were about to get tackled, and purposely lowered their body so the tackler would get called/ejected.

It also sounds like a person can get called for targeting. However, the tackle will get reviewed by the official before the person is actually ejected from the game. It's possible to get called for it, but they have to "see intent" in the video for them to get the full wrath of the penalty.

 

[3TrueFans]

Mike and Mike talked about this quite a bit last week. They raised the question about what if a receiver saw they were about to get tackled, and purposely lowered their body so the tackler would get called/ejected.

It also sounds like a person can get called for targeting. However, the tackle will get reviewed by the official before the person is actually ejected from the game. It's possible to get called for it, but they have to "see intent" in the video for them to get the full wrath of the penalty.

Receivers purposefully trying to get drilled in the head? That's a bold move.

 

[MattforState]

Mike and Mike talked about this quite a bit last week. They raised the question about what if a receiver saw they were about to get tackled, and purposely lowered their body so the tackler would get called/ejected.

It also sounds like a person can get called for targeting. However, the tackle will get reviewed by the official before the person is actually ejected from the game. It's possible to get called for it, but they have to "see intent" in the video for them to get the full wrath of the penalty.

Just what college football needs, longer games with more time watching refs with a head set on...

 

[Clark]

So it appears the Big 10 isn't the only conference going with the "when in doubt, throw them out" policy.

That leads me to believe this directive is coming from above the conference commissioners heads.

 

[mkcrawford]

Mike and Mike talked about this quite a bit last week. They raised the question about what if a receiver saw they were about to get tackled, and purposely lowered their body so the tackler would get called/ejected.

It also sounds like a person can get called for targeting. However, the tackle will get reviewed by the official before the person is actually ejected from the game. It's possible to get called for it, but they have to "see intent" in the video for them to get the full wrath of the penalty.

You see this a lot, and even hear the announcers talking about it. A WR catches a pass over the middle, sees the safety coming, and right before the collision ducks his head and shoulders to get ready for the impact. He (the WR) has now lowered himself and helmets collide. Bracing for impact isn't a football move...it's basic instinct.

They'll need to take this into account, IMO, when reviewing these plays and determining the DQ.

 

[NickTheGreat]

You see this a lot, and even hear the announcers talking about it. A WR catches a pass over the middle, sees the safety coming, and right before the collision ducks his head and shoulders to get ready for the impact. He (the WR) has now lowered himself and helmets collide. Bracing for impact isn't a football move...it's basic instinct.

They'll need to take this into account, IMO, when reviewing these plays and determining the DQ.

Right. And I'd go as far to say it should be a two-way street. I've seen that happen to a lot of ISU defensive guys, getting a flag because the RB or WR lowers his head

It is hard to prove intent, but if you can prove intent of the defensive player, you should be able to prove intent of the offensive player

 

[cyhawkdmb]

Now granted it has been over 15 years since I played organized football. and a guy at Big 12 Media said this today.. But we were taught to keep our head up.. Facemask into the chest. That will be considered targeting. and the guys response was to just get lower... Well I can guarantee that the lower you go the harder it is to keep your head/facemask up. So they are willing to risk players getting paralized over concussion... It just seems really hard to try and change overnight.. and that is what they are trying to do..

Now in the future, it will be easy because kids are being taught how to tackle and not get penalized. Not how to tackle the right way.

 

[Clark]

Now granted it has been over 15 years since I played organized football. and a guy at Big 12 Media said this today.. But we were taught to keep our head up.. Facemask into the chest. That will be considered targeting. and the guys response was to just get lower... Well I can guarantee that the lower you go the harder it is to keep your head/facemask up. So they are willing to risk players getting paralized over concussion... It just seems really hard to try and change overnight.. and that is what they are trying to do..

Now in the future, it will be easy because kids are being taught how to tackle and not get penalized. Not how to tackle the right way.

kids haven't been taught how to tackle "the right way" in twenty years. And those that were taught the right way to tackle stopped doing it anyway in favor of "sportscenter tackles"

 

[cyhawkdmb]

kids haven't been taught how to tackle "the right way" in twenty years. And those that were taught the right way to tackle stopped doing it anyway in favor of "sportscenter tackles"

I just think tell players to get low on your tackles is not going to solve all the problems. It is going to create more.. Like I said, I think the lower you go the harder it is going to be to keep your head up.

I was shocked to hear that 17 targeting penalties were called last year by big 12 officials. I can think of 2 or 3 thrown against ISU players.

One that wasnt was a game changer when Knott leveled the WR from Tulsa and he fumbled and ISU recovered.

 

[besserheimerphat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIu22jokKKk

Starting at about 50 seconds, they show the hit in slow motion from the side. You can see the defender make first contact with the top of his helmet. If he'd have used his facemask, it would be perfectly legal. I'd guess that he wouldn't get ejected upon review as it's clear he made first contact with the runningback's chest/shoulder pad and not his helmet. But it would still be a penalty. The rulebook does include a clause as well that any targeting foul in which the player is NOT ejected shall automatically be reviewed by the conference, before the next game, for possible suspension.