Targeting

[jared52 4,354]

This penalty has to go. It's absurd. What Countess did was not dangerous. What happened to Duke was more dangerous and of course wasn't flagged (not should it be). If you are coming over the middle, there will be a saftey there to make the play. It's dangerous to come over the middle. If you are a QB and don't want to get hit, you can't slide 1 yard from the defender.

It wasn't just the garbage in the AU game, it was also in the UGA/Vandy game. UGA defender hits the QB with a textbook wrap tackle just as he was letting the ball go and he got tossed. And the video review team doesn't have the guts to overturn these poor calls for whatever reason.

They say it's player safety. It's hurting the game and it has to be removed or they just need to start handing out flag belts and play no touch blocking.

[AUDub 11,131]

Yeah, it's stupid. Countess violated the letter of the rule. Not the spirit.

And the letter is stupid.

[Barnacle 9,064]

Agreed, but unfortunately its not going anywhere. It can only get more strict. The NFL and the NCAA know that they better be able to defend themselves in court in light of what we now know about head injuries. They need to be able to say, "we took reasonable measures to protect players."

[AU64 10,122]

Agreed, but unfortunately its not going anywhere. It can only get more strict. The NFL and the NCAA know that they better be able to defend themselves in court in light of what we now know about head injuries. They need to be able to say, "we took reasonable measures to protect players."

Agree.....the replay guys are not likely to take the 'softer' position on a call like that. They can of course see it on the replay but I expect they give credit to the field officials who have a better sense of the impact of the hit. Nobody in a position of authority is going to suggest that the officials are calling that penalty too tightly.

[aujeff11 6,243]

When the ball carriers are sliding or falling, I think the intent should be judged more strictly and the details less strict. Sometimes it is inevitable that the ballcarrier and the tackler will meet the head of the ballcarrier when he goes down.

[Barnacle 9,064]

When the ball carriers are sliding or falling, I think the intent should be judged more strictly and the details less strict. Sometimes it is inevitable that the ballcarrier and the tackler will meet the head of the ballcarrier when he goes down.

Yeah, I think so too. On that play, there wasn't any clear intent to "target". The only problem is that judging intent on a football field, is so subjective, that the rule would never be applied evenly. They kind of have to go by the details.

[tigerbrotha12 2,362]

Hate the rule. Play football

[WarTiger 3,896]

I don't hate the rule because there are instances where there are hits where there is clearly a malicious intent. Those have no place in the game and must be penalized.

Under the definition of targeting, it was targeting because initial contact was his forearm to the helmet. But sometimes they need to use common sense and realize a player a step or 2 away at full speed is not going to be able to adjust for a QB that begins a slide. It's just not possible nor was that contact avoidable. It definitely wasn't malicious. I'm just glad it happened in the first half so he's available next week.

The hit to duke over the middle was definitely NOT targeting but it could have easily been a personal foul for a hit on a defenseless player.

[Shift 350]

The hit on Duke was not helmet to helmet but IMO, it WAS a hit on a defenseless player which is the same thing, isn't it?

[Johndunc 33]

Wonder if a player on offense could be called if he intentionally tries to get hit in the helmet..

[AUDub 11,131]

Wonder if a player on offense could be called if he intentionally tries to get hit in the helmet..

I believe I saw targeting called on a fullback last year.

[aujeff11 6,243]

When the ball carriers are sliding or falling, I think the intent should be judged more strictly and the details less strict. Sometimes it is inevitable that the ballcarrier and the tackler will meet the head of the ballcarrier when he goes down.

Yeah, I think so too. On that play, there wasn't any clear intent to "target". The only problem is that judging intent on a football field, is so subjective, that the rule would never be applied evenly. They kind of have to go by the details.

I guess I really don't like it being subjective either. Like Wartiger said, if common sense was applied, players wouldn't be needlessly ejected. And thanks for ignoring my huge grammar issue at the end of my OP.

[jared52 4,354]

The hit on Duke was not helmet to helmet but IMO, it WAS a hit on a defenseless player which is the same thing, isn't it?

Helmet to helmet is not the rule. A hit to the head or neck is the rule and Duke was hit on the chin with no opportunity to protect himself. It was the penalty to the letter and it was ignored by the officials.

[Lowrider 0]

They were both good clean hits, the rule is dumb and driven by lawsuits that they want to avoid.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

The hit on Duke was not helmet to helmet but IMO, it WAS a hit on a defenseless player which is the same thing, isn't it?

Helmet to helmet is not the rule. A hit to the head or neck is the rule and Duke was hit on the chin with no opportunity to protect himself. It was the penalty to the letter and it was ignored by the officials.

The thing that got me is that he intentionally launch off his feet at Duke. I remember a couple of years ago, when the rule first came into play, we had a guy called for it and the reason they gave is because he launched. It was obvious that kid was trying to ring Dukes bell and something should have been called.

Calling it on Countess was a travesty on the other side... He was trying to wrap the guy up like he is supposed to, and the contact was negligible. The SEC needs to review this game and revisit that rule with the refs.

[AUDub 11,131]

Wonder if a player on offense could be called if he intentionally tries to get hit in the helmet..

I believe I saw targeting called on a fullback last year.

Found it.

Oklahoma FB Aaron Ripkowski ejected for targeting

[WarTiger 3,896]

The hit on Duke was not helmet to helmet but IMO, it WAS a hit on a defenseless player which is the same thing, isn't it?

the rule isn't written as helmet to helmet and no they aren't the same thing.

[AUTUmike 79]

The only silver lining of the garbage Countess call was that it occurred with a few minutes left in the 1st half--so he'll be set to start @LSU.

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

Saw quite a few targeting calls yesterday while watching various games. I found this article:

http://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2015/09/12/3-players-ejected-for-targeting-in-top-25-games

9 cfb players ejected yesterday across the country(!) It must be a point of emphasis.

[Sully to Beasley 643]

This is the worst football rule in 100 years. Defenders have to play now with one hand tied behind their backs and with fear of being tossed from a game due to poor judgement from a field official and a replay booth official who lacks the courage to reverse an obvious bad call. I am as concerned about injuries as the next guy but stupid rules that do nothing to stop injuries only hurt the sport.

[eibua12 81]

This penalty has to go. It's absurd. What Countess did was not dangerous. What happened to Duke was more dangerous and of course wasn't flagged (not should it be). If you are coming over the middle, there will be a saftey there to make the play. It's dangerous to come over the middle. If you are a QB and don't want to get hit, you can't slide 1 yard from the defender.

It wasn't just the garbage in the AU game, it was also in the UGA/Vandy game. UGA defender hits the QB with a textbook wrap tackle just as he was letting the ball go and he got tossed. And the video review team doesn't have the guts to overturn these poor calls for whatever reason.

They say it's player safety. It's hurting the game and it has to be removed or they just need to start handing out flag belts and play no touch blocking.

Helmet to Helmet contact during the UGA/Vandy hit. The replay couldn't overturn it once you see that. He lead with his head and made contact helmet to helmet. Unfortunately I don't think he could have made a better tackle and avoided the hit to the neck/head area. He was just taller than the QB and things didn't line up right. Concussions are on the forefront of sports and it doesn't take much to have actually have a minor concussion and people are starting to realize that. Even in our 8u-12u girls softball it is the glancing blows the head to the ground and such that is getting attention because these are going unnoticed, watch for the same to happen in football. My hypothesis is turf is causing a lot of concussions head to ground etc which when added to a severe hit causes issue