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.
On Targeting: National official explains action - not intent - key in rule protecting players
System
Posts: 11,394 admin
On Targeting: National official explains action - not intent - key in rule protecting players
AUSTIN — Georgia fans have taken extra note of college football’s targeting rules after two Bulldogs were ejected in the second half of the 30-15 win over Texas last Saturday.
Comments
He is talking about the receiver lowering their head as not being an attack but it influences the call against the defender. They go in for a clean, legal hit but the actions of the offensive player suddenly changes the ruling. That is not fair and it is 100% viewable and clear what happened.
Having had multiple concussions and multiple extensive periods of memory loss due to football, which led to my having to give up the game, I am fully onboard with the intent of the rule but I do not see how you can penalize the defender for the actions of the offense.
The Deck is stacked against the defensive player. How far away are we from going to Flag Football!?!
Agreeing with the other comments. Start calling it on the offensive players or back off on the defensive players. Otherwise, it's a tactical weapon for the offensive players to use to draw a penalty or break tackles.
Both tackles look pretty textbook to me. The defensive player's shoulder is actually where most of the contact occurs. You can't tackle properly or safely (defensive player) with your head straight up, so the head naturally drops . There's just no other way to do it, especially in the split second in which you're trying to make a tackle. In Dan Jackson's tackle, the offensive player lowers his head as well, so it makes the defensive player's tackle look more egregious. I just think most of these examples of targeting around the league end up penalizing players who weren't at fault, but they were simply doing their job. There should be different levels of punishment too, because this one size fits all approach puts all the very questionable minor infractions into the same bucket as the major ones.
Would hate to be a defensive player especially when involved in a bang bang play. He talks so much about “intent” but outside of the TE story he raises, I’m not sure you can often determine intent from a video. To draw the conclusion that the 2 plays from the Texas game shows an ill intent would be 100% subjective with no evidence. A RB clearly lowers their head with that same intent when they are through the line and trying to run over a DB. To shrug it off as “they are trying to get extra yards” completely disputes the fact the defensive player is trying to stop them from getting those extra yards and not trying to injure anyone.
Like most things designed to “protect” people or things, these rules are often ill conceived (with good intent mind you) and left too much to individual interpretation with no recognition or understanding of the consequences from these. We let them get away with the “well it’s to improve safety” without challenging them to look to tweak these rules as we get evidence of the variable consequences. The fact they don’t really look for the offensive targeting tells you all you need to know.
Great comments/thoughts from my fellow Dawgs fans on this issue. I think it’ll be a long, long, time before it’s worked out by the powers that be. Hey it’s a Bye Week !!Off topic, Talk To Me !! How’s your favorite HS doing ??
My old home place West Laurens HS @ Dexter, Ga. are 7-1 and 4-1 in the Region but they have Two Really tough games coming up Both on the road.
My new adopted Home, Rabun County HS @ Tiger, Ga. are 6-3 I think they’re 4-2 in Region. So tell me about Your favorite HS is doing !!
Go Dawgs beat the u g l y ole mud lizards !!
Targeting as in targeting another player. Neither was done.
So the other team gets a penalty yardage advantage because our player
could have hurt himself. If they make contact on the other's head…I get it.
But to reward the other team when you are "targeting" your own head is ridiculous!
IT should be about the contact….the head was not contacted (head lowered? Yes) but not hurting anyone.
Lets be honest this is about covering your arse NCAA Shaw!
15 yds for the other team because you could have (could have) hurt…..yourself?
Another thing….the penalties are TOO harsh.
Triple Whammy….Keep the penalty. Eject for a 2nd offense. Suspend after 3rd.
PERIOD!
CTD hit out of the park for me. It should be extremely rare for any player to be suspended from action (particularly involving a future game) based on something this subjective. There is a blame element to that which is beyond defensible. The NCAA should review that element this next seasons and do something about it, regardless of revisions to the contact element of targeting.
The more Officials talk, the more confused I become. (Targeting & pass interference vs. TX being overturned explanations. Saw Cam Newton on YouTube. Said he NEVER saw PI overturned.
He says action, not intention, is what matters, then says offensive players aren't called for targeting because their intention isn't attacking.
this explanation is hot garbage
Great correction - I was already ready to type without clear comprehension. Ha.
I do strongly disagree with his point about the offensive player not having an intention to attack. He clearly isn’t watching many games or highlights.
There was just a call and reversal in the Ole Miss Oklahoma game that looked worse than either of the plays in the Georgia game.
Again, a rule out in place that allows way too much to interpretation.
Ejection shouldn’t be enforced unless the player launches himself using the helmet to target. Sit them out the next series at the most. This rule was implemented for player safety, but a minor point to penalize the defensive players more. The targeting calls I don’t agree with are receivers that duck their head in anticipation of a hit, but the defensive player has already made his move to hit the player in the chest but because of the head duck, the defensive player gets called for targeting. That happened to a Georgia player in 2020. Offensive players should be called for targeting if they lower their head to initiate contact.