Tareting Rule is ruining college football!

[Brer Hog]

If you saw the latest targeting ejection against A&M, I ask you... what is the DB supposed to do?  ThIs is one rule that needs to go until they can use common sense to apply it.  Ruining football and unfairly advantaging the offense.

[Arazorbackguy1]

Agreed. Ejection is too much. Maybe make them sit out a series or something, and ejection if they do it again. Ridiculous to lose a guy for that.

[LRHawg]

Agreed. Hope they do away with the suspension next year.

[Arazorbackguy1]

It's also like the announcers aren't allowed to say anything against it. I have yet to hear a reasonable response from the commentators on it.  It's always,"it's a great rule, blah, blah"

[Hogarusa]

Concussions are ruining football

[HSVhogfan2]

Concussions are ruining football

Actually it's concussion related lawsuits.

[reddogjcss]

A true targeting Yes but these incidental ones are crazy!

[Arazorbackguy1]

Which is why the announcers will never speak against it.

[PORKULATOR]

Concussions are ruining football

NOOOO
Open talks about concussions are ruining football.

Haaa, kidding... My daughter has a concussion right now from a knee to the head during a basketball game. She was shoved from behind, another girl kneed her in the head, knocked her out for a few seconds. She missed 30 seconds of game time and finished the game before we went to the emergency room.

[ronmahony]

Yeah i don't see how that kid could have done much different, bad call.

[Martygit]

I absolutely agree!! - It's such a subjective call - and ejection is such an over-reaction - if it's truly targeting (and, I understand they are reacting to the media's concentration on concussions) penalize the team unless it's so flagrant that you think the defensive guy was trying to cripple the runner - otherwise, 15 yards is good enough - even then, it's not objective and subject to what the officials think the defensive guy was trying to do

[daBoar]

Unfortunately it was helmet to helmet; therefore aligning with the definition of targeting.  But, the decision for targeting should have a bit of a subjective element.  For example, did it appear to be malicious or did the receiver duck at the last moment and the helmet to helmet contact was unavoidable.  That should have just been a 15 yard penalty (and half the distance to the goal).

[HamHands]

Don't play

[Arazorbackguy1]

Exactly. Don't play if concussions are ruining football.

[razorfrog]

If you saw the latest targeting ejection against A&M, I ask you... what is the DB supposed to do?  ThIs is one rule that needs to go until they can use common sense to apply it.  Ruining football and unfairly advantaging the offense.

Not duck his head like a moron

[PORKULATOR]

There is helmet to helmet contact by a lot of the best defenders, from the best teams and its never called. Its called more often on teams just playing hard that can't afford an official screw-job. Its a sh t rule.

[Arazorbackguy1]

Just wait until an Alabama or top ranked team gets their top player ejected and it changes the game. Then we will see an adjustment of the rule.

[Arazorbackguy1]

Agree pork

[PORKULATOR]

Why do they still let RBs stiff arm the facemask of tacklers... This seems ludicrous to me if safety is really an issue with the rule makers.

[Martygit]

There is helmet to helmet contact by a lot of the best defenders, from the best teams and its never called. Its called more often on teams just playing hard that can't afford an official screw-job. Its a sh t rule.

Yep!!! +11111111111+

[PORKULATOR]

Agree pork

Agree pork

and I agree with Watching folks swim... Lmao

[SquidBilly]

I like that they review each targeting call and are allowed to reverse it if warranted.  If three guys look at the same thing and agree then it is very likely it fits the definition of the rule.  On the one tonight the kid dropped his head and hit with the crown of the helmet.  Nothing severe but it is the kind of thing they are trying to eliminate. 

[sharpd1]

Yeah man.  Absolutely hate pretty much every unnecessary roughness penalty and their derivative.

[Torqued pork]

The rules always favor the offense. Running backs lead with their helmets all the time.

[The real Hogules]

If it was only called when a defender "launched" himself at a defenseless player AND made helmet to helmet contact, then I could accept this rule, but as it's currently being enforced it's ridiculous.

[Brer Hog]

I like that they review each targeting call and are allowed to reverse it if warranted.  If three guys look at the same thing and agree then it is very likely it fits the definition of the rule.  On the one tonight the kid dropped his head and hit with the crown of the helmet.  Nothing severe but it is the kind of thing they are trying to eliminate. 

Again, what should have the defender done in that split second? Just get pancaked at the goal line?

If he is going to do his job, then he must attempt to leverage to stop the advancing opponent, which means he must get low.  How does he do that without dropping his head? 

It is a bogus rule that unfairly helps the offense as it is currently applied!

[ChicoHog]

I agree with an earlier poster who said it should be a 15 yard penalty or maybe sit out a quarter at minimum.  The A&M player did lower his head but it was not malicious for sure.  Tough for DBs especially. 

[Danimal]

What the defender did was nothing more than an instinctive reaction. Had he not lowered his head, he would've been literally wiped out by the receiver.

[Brer Hog]

What the defender did was nothing more than an instinctive reaction. Had he not lowered his head, he would've been literally wiped out by the receiver.

Amen!

[Danimal]

Amen!

Pretty much the same situation with Rohan Gaines 2 weeks ago.

[twistitup]

Defender could have broken his neck. It's simple don't use the crown of the helmet - there is no need to. The DB lowered his head, that's a fact

No ejection necessary, but the hit was not necessary either. They receiver was covered, the ball was incomplete- but he still delivers a blow targeting the head of the receiver with his head. Just a dumb, unnecessary hit- more dangerous for the DB as I see it. A new neck is hard to come by.

[KennyForAD]

If you saw the latest targeting ejection against A&M, I ask you... what is the DB supposed to do?  ThIs is one rule that needs to go until they can use common sense to apply it.  Ruining football and unfairly advantaging the offense.

What is the DB supposed to do?  wth?  Uh... not lead with crown of his helmet and not hit the receiver in the head.  duh

[KennyForAD]

Defender could have broken his neck. It's simple don't use the crown of the helmet - there is no need to. The DB lowered his head, that's a fact

No ejection necessary, but the hit was not necessary either. They receiver was covered, the ball was incomplete- but he still delivers a blow targeting the head of the receiver with his head. Just a dumb, unnecessary hit- more dangerous for the DB as I see it. A new neck is hard to come by.

I like the ejection rule.  If we are serious about trying to prevent serious injuries, the ejection seems to be getting the point across.

All of you who think this rule is 'ruining college football' might want to reconsider what you like about the sport.   Do you miss the old days when players could spear players in a defenseless position?  Really?

[Brer Hog]

So the DB should just let the receiver flatten him? Duh!

[ErieHog]

If the defender is taught correctly, that head is never lowered.

What should the defender do?  Use better technique.

Bielema discussed tackling and collision protocols delivered by Smith in the aftermath of the LeGrand injury, and how they are fantastic tools to play both clean, and safe, this week.

[KennyForAD]

So the DB should just let the receiver flatten him? Duh!

It beats a broken neck. 

And if you really believe that, then you need to educate yourself on proper tackling technique.  No.1 is 'never lower your head.  Never."

[Brer Hog]

Perhaps, but since you are well-versed, please rewatch the replay and tell me what the DB could have done differently at game speed.

[KennyForAD]

Perhaps, but since you are well-versed, please rewatch the replay and tell me what the DB could have done differently at game speed.

He could have kept his head up.  Go listen to BB's presser.  He discusses teaching them to never duck their heads. 

[Brer Hog]

What he did appeared instinctive to protect himself from the blow.  It was not an attempt to deliver a blow, but to cushion himself and assure the receiver didn't retain the ball. There was no reaction time at game speed.  Hence, my comments that this was a poor call.

[Arazorbackguy1]

Seems to me there are a lot of db's that like to use their shoulders to hit the offensive player.  Sometimes when the shoulder is lowered, the target is the Receiver at ball height.  However, the receiver likes to deliver their own licks and lowers their head to do so.  If we are going to stop it, call it both ways.  If the receiver lowers their head, then it's ejection for them too!

[Danimal]

Seems to me there are a lot of db's that like to use their shoulders to hit the offensive player.  Sometimes when the shoulder is lowered, the target is the Receiver at ball height.  However, the receiver likes to deliver their own licks and lowers their head to do so.  If we are going to stop it, call it both ways.  If the receiver lowers their head, then it's ejection for them too!

Agreed.

[ErieHog]

What he did appeared instinctive to protect himself from the blow.  It was not an attempt to deliver a blow, but to cushion himself and assure the receiver didn't retain the ball. There was no reaction time at game speed.  Hence, my comments that this was a poor call.

The intent is irrelevant;  it is an unsafe, correctable behavior.   The rule exists for a reason.

[KennyForAD]

What he did appeared instinctive to protect himself from the blow.  It was not an attempt to deliver a blow, but to cushion himself and assure the receiver didn't retain the ball. There was no reaction time at game speed.  Hence, my comments that this was a poor call.

That's understandable.  But the rule is clear and he clearly violated it, hence it was not a poor call.  The rule puts the burden on the defender to not do what he did.  I agree that it doesn't seem quite right to punish for unintentional hits, but I personally think its a good rule and that it will reduce the number of serious injuries. 

[longpig]

It's a necessary rule, the penalty is harsh because concussions have sometimes immediate and often serious longterm effects.  I believe in Arkansas if a grade school kid gets 3 his playing days are over. If concussions aren't drastically reduced, football as we know it will soon be a thing of the past.

[TMc]

They have made the rule black and white.., simply if it's head to head/ neck contact - the player is ejected for targeting.  That call against A&M was simply wrong.  I don't like dealing in the shades of gray.., but this play in football is not the same every time it happens.  However, I know they are looking big picture here, and trying to take the subjectiveness out of the officials hands.

[lahawg1]

IMHO the one hit that is a textbook example of perfection was when Jake tackled Conner Shaw a couple years ago. Head was up, hard hit, and he wrapped him up. Just a great play all around.

[Piggfoot]

What he did appeared instinctive to protect himself from the blow.  It was not an attempt to deliver a blow, but to cushion himself and assure the receiver didn't retain the ball. There was no reaction time at game speed.  Hence, my comments that this was a poor call.

DB's are taught by precise timing to contact the receiver at the moment the Receiver touches the ball. The issue is the  point of contact. Even with the head up the rules do not want contact above the shoulder pad. The DB lowed his head and was flagged hopefully he learns to improve his technique.

[Mike_e]

Defender could have broken his neck. It's simple don't use the crown of the helmet - there is no need to. The DB lowered his head, that's a fact

No ejection necessary, but the hit was not necessary either. They receiver was covered, the ball was incomplete- but he still delivers a blow targeting the head of the receiver with his head. Just a dumb, unnecessary hit- more dangerous for the DB as I see it. A new neck is hard to come by.

No other way around it.  There has to be a reduction in the concussing going on.  Period.

It doesn't matter how much I or anyone else likes playing or watching football it's not worth the real, actual, permanent damage it can do through head to head spearing (notice I didn't say helmet?).

This rule is going to stay, it may be refined but it will stay.

[Piggfoot]

They have made the rule black and white.., simply if it's head to head/ neck contact - the player is ejected for targeting.  That call against A&M was simply wrong.  I don't like dealing in the shades of gray.., but this play in football is not the same every time it happens.  However, I know they are looking big picture here, and trying to take the subjectiveness out of the officials hands.

I thought and the replay official thought the DB lowered his head and made contact above the shoulder pads.
Why was the call wrong? 

[Mike_e]

I thought and the replay official thought the DB lowered his head and made contact above the shoulder pads.
Why was the call wrong?

Dude, you the reff?

Kidding, but good point.