Tareting Rule is ruining college football!

[hammy davis jr]

I just tareted

[Arkfan]

If you obviously and blatantly target thats one thing but I dont think thats what happened last night.

I thought the guy was leading with his shoulder or at least trying to till the receiver sort of bent over on his way down.

And thats about the nicest thing youll ever hear me say about a&m so it danged sure aint because Im biased.

[rickm1976]

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.

One of my son's HS teammates is dead today because he plowed into a receiver coming across the middle with the crown of his helmet.  He broke up what would have been a completion, but snapped his neck, and was paralyzed from the neck down.  He died a couple of years later from complications from pneumonia.  This kid had already committed to Baylor and had a great future ahead of him.  I will never forget his mother's screams coming from where he lay on the field when she realized he was paralyzed.  Concussions or not, it is a necessary rule.

[rickm1976]

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.

I'm glad your daughter wasn't seriously hurt, and hope she didn't suffer any permanent damage.

[Mike_e]

One of my son's HS teammates is dead today because he plowed into a receiver coming across the middle with the crown of his helmet.  He broke up what would have been a completion, but snapped his neck, and was paralyzed from the neck down.  He died a couple of years later from complications from pneumonia.  This kid had already committed to Baylor and had a great future ahead of him.  I will never forget his mother's screams coming from where he lay on the field when she realized he was paralyzed.  Concussions or not, it is a necessary rule.

This thread is over.  There's nothing left except for some porch dog barking.

[hawg IQ]

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.

Right now its just a rule to allow refs to have bias against one team over another.  Its not that its bad rule, but how do you enforce fairly. I think a ref has to see intent which is almost impossible.
    If its just a process in a play that happens because bodies are flying through the air to make a play, how can there be intent. I know about the crown of the helmet stuff, but thats bogus because the defense could never tackle anybody if that were true.
  Something that needs to be corrected is defenders hitting running backs, receivers late while its clear the player is down. Also the ball grabbing after the play is over needs stopped also.

[rljjr]

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!

In cases like that I would say there is not a "defenseless" receiver and therefore no targeting. But it's the same thing for crack-back blocks when the defender has his eyes on the runner and the offensive blocker downfield (usually a receiver) wails the tar out of the defenseless defender. The crowd goes wild at the violent hit (I love them, by the way) and never is a flag thrown, regardless of where the defender is hit.

All this said, I'm not opposed to making the game safer for players, but I don't think that's what this rule is really all about. I'm cynical enough to believe the rule is designed to help offenses score points, which is more exciting, which keeps viewers, which generates advertising sales. The constant discussion of the targeting rule also keeps people talking about college football.

[Hogfaniam]

I just tareted

Never trust a taret

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Back in the day, everyone was taught to lead with the head, not the crown of the helmet, but head up, essentially the forehead of the helmet. And, there were some major league blows delivered even back then, knocking players (both those getting hit and those doing the hitting) out of games and practices. There were concussions back then as well, but research wasn't available at the time to tell us the real and sometimes longer lasting effects of concussions.

If you got dinged a little or even if you were knocked completely out, coaches would take you to the sideline and trainers would bust open an Amm-Cap and run it under your nose to try to bring you around. Once you demonstrated that you knew where you were and what was going on, you could go back in. But the programs I was around limited you to 4-5 concussions, and once you reached that limit it was recommended that you see your physician and probably stop playing football. Problem was, the cumulative number of concussions wasn't monitored as closely as it should have been, especially among the players who didn't sustain concussions frequently.

These days, players are so much bigger and faster than what they were years ago and the collisions carry so much more impact that a "targeting rule" does need to be in place. But, I also think that there is intentional targeting and unintentional contact to the head and that those need to be treated differently.

A recent case in point was the targeting call against Rohan Gaines. That was not intentional on his part and only resulted because the receiver bent his body over to try to make the catch. it just so happened that his head was at a level at that point that Gaines made contact and I am not so sure but what it was his shoulder that contacted rather than his helmet. Point being, in cases where it is unintentional, throw the flag if you must, but ejection and suspension for 4 quarters? No.

The problem is that some officiating crews have more tolerance for this kind of thing than others and like the human beings that they are, they also make mistakes.

Still, there needs to be a better definition of this type of contact as being either intentional or unintentional and they should be penalized differently.

And even then, this is a tough and dangerous sport and tragic accidents are going to occur. That's just the nature of the game.

[UhYeaJoe]

MuskogeeHogFan,

You make some good points but it's virtually impossible to determine intent.

[twistitup]

Good post Muskogee - spot on

[Hogfaniam]

MuskogeeHogFan,

You make some good points but it's virtually impossible to determine intent.

This rule name should be changed to the defenseless position rule.  It helps to focus on the intended outcome of it.  In the act of receiving and throwing and blindside hits should make up 99% of the uses of it.  Defenders are going to have to start aiming for the mid section and not the chest, that way the head rarely comes into play when they duck.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

MuskogeeHogFan,

You make some good points but it's virtually impossible to determine intent.

I disagree that it is impossible to determine intent. There are purposeful direct blows to the head whether it be with helmets or forearms. Then there are those that occur because a receiver bends his head over in making a play, when the defender's head (or leading point) was meant to contact the receiver at a lower level (see Rohan Gaines).

Now a DT, LB or DE or even CB that contacts a QB above the mid chest area, is just asking for a call and they know better than to do that. Do that, and it should be treated as intentional.

But what about the RB's that run a dive or follow a FB through the line on a power run? Do we honestly think that there isn't helmet to helmet contact in that area? Of course there is.

So the bottom line is that it really comes down to protecting what is considered to be "defenseless players" who aren't in the "scrum" at the LOS. Ironically, it is those players at the LOS who receive the most and most frequent blows to the head...a cumulative effect can occur.

In the open field where the vision of the officials and the replay camera is not blocked, it is much easier (IMO) to determine what is intentional and that which is not.

[Vantage 8 dude]

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).

Actually if you go back and look again the hit wasn't actually helmet-to-helmet. Rather it was the fact that the defender hit the receiver up in the shoulder pad/neck  area. The way the rule is written even without hitting a player's head as long as they make contact in the neck and shoulder area it can be construed as "targeting". BTW the defender isn't necessarily required to lead with his helmet for the rule to apply.

[Ex-Trumpet]

By the definition of "targeting" every running back could be called for this on every play they carry the ball:


KEY INDICATORS

                  Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342

[Brer Hog]

Thanks for all the input.  The interpretation of the rule must change.  If defenders are taught not to lower their heads but they use proper technique to aim at the numbers to make a tackle and the offensive player lowers his head raising the defenders strike zone,  then that should not be called on the defender.  Period!  It is a poor rule as applied and is ruining a wonderful game.  I am all for safety, but not at the expense of common sense and the integrity of the game.  The one concussion I sustained occurred when I attempted to tackle a running back at the waist head on and took a knee to the forehead. Out like a light!  The only way to render football completely safe would be to not play the game.  What a sad day that will be.

[Hogfaniam]

By the definition of "targeting" every running back could be called for this on every play they carry the ball:


KEY INDICATORS

                  Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342

But he is not attacking someone defenseless, unless instead of running to open field, he sought out a defender that was not looking at him and just tried to run him over.

[Ex-Trumpet]

But he is not attacking someone defenseless, unless instead of running to open field, he sought out a defender that was not looking at him and just tried to run him over.

The part in bold has nothing to do with a defenseless player...it's leading with the crown.

[DeltaBoy]

It is a full.blown BS rule.