Targeting and Intentional Grounding

My issue with targeting (despite it being a totally extremely arbitrarily called subjective rule and always from some nerd in the booth upstairs) is that they call it...when no penalty was called on the field.

And why isn't a 15 yard penalty enough? Why do you have to eject the guy?

Besides fighting and throwing punches, it's the only personal foul penalty that carries the penalty of ejection. It's absurd. Let them play, the other team got 15 yards, lets move on. The player didn't punch him in the gut and piss on his opponent's helmet.

Frankly it's just a rule so we can all feel better about ourselves watching an inherently violent sport. Players are still banging heads; targeting rules don't make the sport safe...helmet to helmet crown hits happen on every running play.

quote:

---

If the ball hits at or beyond the line of scrimmage, it's incomplete

---

So you're down with Tom Brady under severe pressure just throwing the ball 50 yards down the field to nobody?...Just a big empty space on the field?

That's the same as airmailing it out of bounds.

When there's no threat of INT, why isn't it grounding?

My issue with targeting is that the defensive player can do everything by the book, but if the offensive player ducks his head at the last second, the defender is screwed.

quote:

---

There should have to have a receiver in the area for this to not be called.

---

Why? I like it how it is.

I don’t think intentional grounding should be a penalty at all. You’re allowed to spike it, you’re allowed to kneel it, you’re allowed to slide, why can’t you throw it away?

quote:

---

the defensive player can do everything by the book, but if the offensive player ducks his head at the last second, the defender is screwed.

---

Not if his face is up looking at the target he's trying to tackle. Unless the defender is doing this, he's not doing "everything by the book."