Targeting?

[Ancient Reptile]

Perfectly acceptable for law to adopt a legalistic approach. What strikes the impartial observer is that it was 95% a form tackle and the tackler can't be responsible for the receiver aiming at the tackler's helmet with his own, missing and hitting the tackler's shoulder. And belay the "go low" stuff, if a QB and he takes a step back you get ejected for trying to injure his legs.

 

[MJMGator]

Perfectly acceptable for law to adopt a legalistic approach. What strikes the impartial observer is that it was 95% a form tackle and the tackler can't be responsible for the receiver aiming at the tackler's helmet with his own, missing and hitting the tackler's shoulder. And belay the "go low" stuff, if a QB and he takes a step back you get ejected for trying to injure his legs.

It wasn't a QB.

 

[Ancient Reptile]

It wasn't a QB.

Maybe tackler's should memorize different tackling zones for different players. Medium for qbs, a little higher for rb's, lower for wrs? What happens if an O-linemen runs with a fumble. I say again: Geez!

 

[Loogis]

Im going to type this REAL SLOW because I know you do not think real fast. The rule DOES NOT REQUIRE HEAD TO HEAD contact. Here is the rule:

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

Was that slow enough for you? It DOES NOT matter if he hit him in the head with something other than his helmet. The morons have been told for several years now not to hit the other guys head or neck. They will either figure it out or watch from the lockerroom.

Here is the rule:

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

In this case, the second instance, Rule 9-1-4, seems to be the applicable rule and the question is was he a defenseless opponent. I will say no. He braced for the hit. It was a legal tackle.

 

[Ray Finkle]

My only issue with the rule is I have never seen one of these targeting calls overturned. I try to be as open minded as possible but I really think that these refs basically try to justify the call on the field more than they worry about getting the call right. Cronkrite should not have had to sit out, there was a game I watched with some buddies where a UT player was thrown out due to a bad call this year, and on and on. When a play happens you know immediately if it is a legit targeting call. If it's a bang bang play and part of a guys helmet bounces off another player's shoulder pads and glances a face mask or the side of their helmet, they still get tossed. Like some said, a lot of these calls are made when someone ducks down. I can't recall if it was Ivey or Sherit against Vandy who got tossed because he hit the qb too high when the guy's head dropped about two feet from the time Ivey dove to impact. 2 feet is a large difference in any strike zone. Should mlb pitchers have to throw to an altered strike zone if the batter stands up taller or ducks down after the ball leaves his hand?

 

[Go Gata]

Here is the rule:

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

In this case, the second instance, Rule 9-1-4, seems to be the applicable rule and the question is was he a defenseless opponent. I will say no. He braced for the hit. It was a legal tackle.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with this opinion.

Not to mention, the last thing we need is even more subjective calls for the already overwhelmed and under trained referees. If a guy is afraid of getting the crap knocked out of him and getting a concussion, there's always the band or male cheerleading.

 

[rogdochar]

Maybe I'm off ... but it looked like the 2 bodies collided both vertically. Also, the
WR very macho-like popped up as to show "you didn't bother me". Anybody else
see it like that ?

 

[MJMGator]

The spirit of the rule is great. The application has been lousy. As many have said before, leave the penalty but eliminate the disqualification.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Not true. Ask Frank Gifford...

Sorry, maybe I should have said guys shouldn't like flying around like harpoons as OFTEN.

 

[TN G8tr]

Many of these targeting call have been when a player lowers his body, braces for the hit. IMO that is not a defenseless player. He is aware of what is coming. Now with that being said if contact is made intentionally to the head of a defenseless player, I get it. Much like trying to make a catch in mid air. Even as much if the defender leads with his head or "crown" it could be called. I still say that if a player ducks, bends down, braces, whatever he is not defenseless. That's where many of these calls are bogus. If contact is made when a player moves in that act of tackling hard to justify that he is defenseless. But they're calling it.

 

[WobbleGator]

Horrible call.

 

[jeeping8r]

Textbook targeting was in the 08 MNC game between UF and OU. IIRC it was Will Hill that speared the beejeezus out of the OU receiver in the 1st qtr..... Receiver didn't catch the ball though.