Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Comments
I was fullback in my day and was taught to take the tackle on my terms. That offensive players are not attacking in the tackle is nonsense. I question whether the people making these rules have ever played the game.
Coaches and players can, do and will game the system. Legally.
Such as the "fake injury drill" to stop the clock. If Texas was thinking on their feet last weekend....they would've done that, rather than have a "bottle storm"....to give the refs time to conference. That's gaming rhe system, fair & square.
Lol...players do it all the time....but, Texas wasn't "prepared" for it. So, the crowd and officials helped em out. Sark could've called a timeout to give officials time to have their little fix-it conference....if he thought for a second, that the officials would actually, change the call.
Nobody in their right mind would've expected that. Enter the Texas Fans. That flat out, had those officials rattled to the core. Otherwise, a couple of those Targeting reviews, never would've happened. They tried to rob the UGA players....IMO.…to save their own hides.
IMO....RB's & Receivers can draw a Targeting Penalty, fairly easily these days, by leading with their head and shoulders, low to the ground, in tight quarters. The way backs have been taught since the beginning of time. I suspect they are teaching players how to use the Targeting rule to their advantage.
The way I see it....It's kind of hard to charge an offensive guy with Targeting....seein' as how the word, "Defensive" is built into every defender's Position Moniker...i.e., Defensive End, Defensive Lineman, Defensive Back, etc..
It's gonna have to be obvious, for an offensive guy to charge a defender with being a "Defenseless Player", when their whole job is to be "Defensive". If that happens....you want that player off the field, anyway. Lmao
Y’all covered it. Seems like “attacking” mean attempting to make a tackle or an egregious block.
Also, another great insight from the Pac-12 who no longer has football and barely played football when they had it…
“Notably, the rate of concussion during targeting plays — where a flag was thrown — was 36.9 times greater than for all other plays.”
A targeting play is now basically any hit that looks bad. So no s*** they are gonna have more concussions than all other (standard)plays.
“Also, the risk of concussion during targeting plays that were confirmed by replay was 49 times greater.” So when the hit not only looks bad but actually is bad more people were injured…riveting stuff.
My questions is how does this rule actually making the game safer? Kicking the guy out based on a bang-bang play doesn’t make the player rethink his whole approach to tackling. All it does it penalize the player for a split second decision. I’m all for making it safer but a 15 yard penalty, ejection and possible suspension doesn’t seem to do it. I’ll need to see the data from the PAC-12 to decide though.
this “junk science” about their justification for the targeting rules and flags is both idiotic on its face, and even more absurd reading the detailed explanation of it.
And to add insult to injury, being forced to listen to color commentators or former football players who are hired to run their blabbering mouths during an entire broadcast of a college football game I am attempting to enjoy about whether or not they believe “by the spirit of the rule” whether or not a targeting call is indeed legit or not that we just witnessed, makes me both want to stick an ice pick into both of my ear drums while simultaneously hitting the person attempting to sound like they know WTH they are talking about squarely between the eyes with a soft mallet hammer(not to kill them, just to temporarily injure them so they will shut up).
Anyway, the “rule” is ridiculous now because it is so wishy washy and the refs that are throwing the flag for it are the same ones that miss approximately 20 holding offenses per game in the SEC and wouldn’t know what a pass interference foul ACTUALLY was if Ed Hochule gave them a 52 week training course on it.
So 🤷♂️.
The next time that a targeting penalty is thrown against a Georgia player during a game, every single Dawg fan sitting in the lower sections should throw anything they can get their hands on onto the field of play causing a delay until the refs overturn the call.
We ALL watched how that worked for the fans of the Texas Longhorns, right Greg Sankey!?!?!?
So 🤷♂️
There’s just never going to be clarity and consistency on this rule. He says the official “can’t read intent.” Then he says, “…a receiver…lowers their head to protect, they’re not attacking.” I guess they don’t have to read intent because it’s just assumed already? I did see targeting called last night on a WR for a blindside block. But we’re talking about the ball carrier here. Has it only been called once in the history of the rule? And then he mentions the crown of the helmet and the spinal concerns there, “don’t want to see that.” Agreed! Again, are you saying the ball carrier pretty much never does that? Looks to me like it’s a regular occurrence.
I’m late to the party but if this is a good thing then how are over 50% of the appeals overturned ? Yesterday Justice Haynes clearly was able to truck a player I would assume because the defense has to learn new tackle skills to stay in the game . The intent of the rule should be defenseless player ie one that gets blindsided . No problem with that but face to face all bets should be off .