- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Here's a question re: Targeting Rule
Posted on 1/2/19 at 9:58 am
Posted on 1/2/19 at 9:58 am
Think about the season you just watched across all games, LSU and non-LSU.
Head shots in football can basically be broken down into two categories. 1) Obvious, launching shots designed with intent 2) Shots that are the normal result of the difficulty in adjusting body position at full speed.
Can it actually be argued that the targeting rule reduced category 2 at all? I'm not sure one can argue that. All it did was result in people leaving games.
Category 1 has always been a penalty, so, I honestly fail to see how the rule has made the game even one iota safer.
Head shots in football can basically be broken down into two categories. 1) Obvious, launching shots designed with intent 2) Shots that are the normal result of the difficulty in adjusting body position at full speed.
Can it actually be argued that the targeting rule reduced category 2 at all? I'm not sure one can argue that. All it did was result in people leaving games.
Category 1 has always been a penalty, so, I honestly fail to see how the rule has made the game even one iota safer.
9
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:01 am to ShortyRob
It will be a fricking travesty if the targeting rule is not adjusted in some way that ends up distinguishing flagrant vs. non-flagrant.
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:03 am to ShortyRob
The "clean hit" on Burrow was more dangerous than the hit that got Delpit ejected.
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:04 am to ShortyRob
I think it has made it safer. That said, there are clearly different categories in the level of intent.
Why can't the NCAA adopt a model similar to basketball's flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 fouls?
A flagrant 1 targeting penalty could result in 15 yards and the player's 1st personal foul. A second personal foul means an ejection from the game
A flagrant 2 targeting penalty means 15 yards, immediate ejection and 1 half suspension.
Roughing the kicker can be a very dangerous infraction. Yet, there are different categories of roughness
Why can't the NCAA adopt a model similar to basketball's flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 fouls?
A flagrant 1 targeting penalty could result in 15 yards and the player's 1st personal foul. A second personal foul means an ejection from the game
A flagrant 2 targeting penalty means 15 yards, immediate ejection and 1 half suspension.
Roughing the kicker can be a very dangerous infraction. Yet, there are different categories of roughness
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:05 am to ShortyRob
quote:It didn't, and can't. Great thread. The rule needs retooling.
Can it actually be argued that the targeting rule reduced category 2 at all? I'm not sure one can argue that. All it did was result in people leaving games.
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:13 am to Alt26
Whatever the rule is it needs to be such that it penalizes the TECHNIQUE players are using and not the RESULT of the play.
Players can control what they do. They can’t control what happens. If a player uses proper technique, isn’t being malicious, is within the normal context of the play, and then...happens to hit a guy in the head because he ducked...
That should NEVER be a penalty.
Players can control what they do. They can’t control what happens. If a player uses proper technique, isn’t being malicious, is within the normal context of the play, and then...happens to hit a guy in the head because he ducked...
That should NEVER be a penalty.
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:16 am to Alt26
quote:Meh. I still saw a ton of the hits that they said the rule was designed to stop. Hell, I saw a ton of the hits the rule was supposed to stop that didn't get called!
I think it has made it safer.
I'm reminded of when I was a kid and my mother would "warn" me to not accidentally spill something or some other variety of accidents. I used to say, "mom, you can't warn someone to not have an accident........if you could, they would call them an "on purpose".
The players are going to lower their shoulders to make hits. Other players are going to duck said hits. They're running full speed. Hence, the hits continue.
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:26 am to Alt26
quote:
A flagrant 1 targeting penalty could result in 15 yards and the player's 1st personal foul. A second personal foul means an ejection from the game
This should be the only rule. Different levels will always lead to interpretation. With interpretation there will always be controversy.
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:41 am to ShortyRob
i think the targeting rule is frustrating. No consistency. Whats more frustrating it all about safety and you see the shot JB took in the bowl game and the 7 overtimes in the A&M. Those kids where exhausted. how can that be safe with kids flat worn out? The 7 overtimes was ripe for injury and complete exhaustion.
all in the name of safety, BS
all in the name of safety, BS
Posted on 1/2/19 at 11:15 am to ShortyRob
I've been thinking the same thing.
My idea is 1st level infraction (incidental) 15yds,
2nd level infraction (obvious) 15yds + ejection from current game (not 1/2 of next game).
Players that are repeat level 2 violators get a 1 game suspension.
My idea is 1st level infraction (incidental) 15yds,
2nd level infraction (obvious) 15yds + ejection from current game (not 1/2 of next game).
Players that are repeat level 2 violators get a 1 game suspension.
Posted on 1/2/19 at 11:19 am to ShortyRob
quote:The rule needs to be tweaked, especially the mandatory ejection part. But to say the rule hasn't been a deterrent at all is just plain false. I have no data to provide but I'm sure players have held back from the hit in certain situations.
Can it actually be argued that the targeting rule reduced category 2 at all?
Posted on 1/2/19 at 11:25 am to ShortyRob
The rule has got to be adjusted. I'm all about player safety, but it's still football and sometimes players are going to bump heads. Delpit is a classic example of non-flagrant. Ejection is ridiculous in that case.
Posted on 1/2/19 at 11:29 am to ShortyRob
The rule needs to be adjusted, but I'm still unsure how to make it "fair".
I'll get downvoted all day for this, but it is obvious to me this is another one of these subjective rules that allows the officials to control the game.
I've seen some teams launch, hit helmet to helmet, etc, and NOTHING is called while other teams lose players left and right over questionable hits.
This is another one of those rules like HOLDING where it appears the refs just call it when they fell like it.
Also the fact that they can suspend a player over it is another thing that pisses me off. Delpit will miss the first half of the first game next year. LOL
I'll get downvoted all day for this, but it is obvious to me this is another one of these subjective rules that allows the officials to control the game.
I've seen some teams launch, hit helmet to helmet, etc, and NOTHING is called while other teams lose players left and right over questionable hits.
This is another one of those rules like HOLDING where it appears the refs just call it when they fell like it.
Also the fact that they can suspend a player over it is another thing that pisses me off. Delpit will miss the first half of the first game next year. LOL
Posted on 1/2/19 at 11:33 am to tigersruledude
quote:
Players can control what they do. They can’t control what happens
bingo
the rule must be divided into 2 levels. i feel bad for players on other teams too, not just mine.
The safety from miami that got ejected against in week 1 didnt deserve that either.
neither did phillips, white, or delpit.
Posted on 1/2/19 at 11:34 am to TigerNala
quote:I see where you are going but using 7 ots as an example is kind of weak. Not many 7 ot games played to warrant change there.
i think the targeting rule is frustrating. No consistency. Whats more frustrating it all about safety and you see the shot JB took in the bowl game and the 7 overtimes in the A&M. Those kids where exhausted. how can that be safe with kids flat worn out? The 7 overtimes was ripe for injury and complete exhaustion.
all in the name of safety, BS
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News