Targeting

[ClkWrkOrange]

The photo is a still from that video.

Yeah but it's very blurry and not the best of the 3 angles.

 

[Crusty]

Yeah but it's very blurry and not the best of the 3 angles.

Yes, I know, but it seems clear the contact is a rule violation. That angle is probably what confirmed the call. Just shows how difficult a job the refs have.

 

[Cusefan95]

Maybe every level of football should be changed to flag football starting in 2016, then we can move on to watching another sport like soccer or something.

The main problem is we're trying to make an inherently dangerous sport safe. The result is inevitably going to be something which looks unlike the game we enjoyed, and which fewer people have interest in. I suspect we reached "peak football" a few years ago - the sport will be far less popular in 2030 than it is currently.

I don't know that it's a bad thing...but it obvious that football is increasing anachronistic in an evolving American culture. It probably can't thrive much longer.

 

[rrlbees]

In looking at the video posted in this thread the following is what I see: [*]The defender ran towards the receiver who was in the grasp of another defender. [*]The defender lowered his helmet and struck the receiver in the chest. When I froze the video and enlarged the clip it appears the defender's helmet made contact either just below the chin or possibly at the bottom of the chin. [*]The receiver was clearly defenseless. As I understand the rule, from the AFCA, the call appears to be correct. At the very least, the neck area was involved, the defender used either his shoulder, helmet or both and the receiver, being in the grasp of another player and his forward progress stopped, meets the definition of a defenseless player. The rule also says "When in doubt it is a foul". Based on the rule the official made the right call. Whether or not the rule is good is another matter. AFCA With the 2013 rule change that makes ejection from the game a part of the penalty for targeting fouls coaches, players and officials need to have a clear understanding of Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. It is very important to understand that thesefouls have not changed from previous years, and officials should officiate these plays as in the past. The characterization of defenseless players has been expanded (see below), but otherwise these rules for the fouls remain as they have been. It is the penalty that has changed. These guidelines are intended to assist everyone involved in the game to understand these rules, which are so important in protecting the safety of the student-athlete. RULES Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4) No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14) Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4. EDIT - add photo

Very good work. Definitely targeting and the right call was made. The still you posted says it all.

 

[SUintheVille]

I certainly understand the rule to protect the players from potential serious injury. While Burgess may have clipped a helmet, it did not appear that he purposely accelerated into the receiver, i.e., true targeting. He was there to make a hit as a football player trying to stop the receiver who was still moving forward but appeared to slow a bit, i.e., I doubt it was malicious. Plus the replay only said the "pay stands" not confirmed. They should modify the rule to not make it all or nothing for ejection. In this case, there should be the 15 yd unsportsmanlike penalty, but only eject if it is confirmed that it was true targeting. Targeting vs. an accidental hit at the shoulder or chin should not be treated all the same IMO.

 

[Orangeman]

This whole thing is ridiculous

A players head is on top of his shoulders for heavens sake

How is a player supposed to tackle with his shoulder and not have his helmet in the action?

There are hundreds of helmet to helmet hits per game, they are not called targeting

This player lead with his shoulder to the players chest, let up when he could have ruined him, and was ejected in the first play of his last bowl game

A player is not "defenseless" within a split second of having a teammate tackle him

The officials, the NCAA and the adults let him down.

The first mistake was the initial flag for targeting. You want to say "hey that was dangerous" and throw a 15 yard unnecessary fine, but as the rules are now you risk no penalty then

The second mistake was the replay official upholding it. The proponents of the call here have analyzed a 10'second clip down to milliseconds and isolated a frame shot where the defender's helmet is grazing (maybe) the opponents helmet. That is NOT targeting. It was a bad call and a bad replay call.

I don't even care about this play in particular, but it does show 1) how bad and dumb the NCAA is (this clumsy rule implementation) and 2) how football is going to struggle to figure itself out in the next 10 years.

One things for sure, offenses should pass pass pass because playing defense will eventually be outlawed

 

[All4SU]

Football as a sport like no others. . .is an interesting concept.

I think it is interesting that, of the major sports invented in this country, our "football" is maybe the only one that has not been embraced internationally.

Lacrosse?

 

[All4SU]

The problem is that players are being taught to "blow up" as opposed to "wrap up".

Exactly.

 

[All4SU]

If they want to call a 15 yard penalty, whatever fine, they change games in the NFL with pass interference all the time, but he was ejected...in his final collegiate game ever...on the first play. That's not right.

I would have thrown him out for his waving to the crowd after getting thrown out.

 

[Crusty]

I certainly understand the rule to protect the players from potential serious injury. While Burgess may have clipped a helmet, it did not appear that he purposely accelerated into the receiver, i.e., true targeting. He was there to make a hit as a football player trying to stop the receiver who was still moving forward but appeared to slow a bit, i.e., I doubt it was malicious. Plus the replay only said the "pay stands" not confirmed. They should modify the rule to not make it all or nothing for ejection. In this case, there should be the 15 yd unsportsmanlike penalty, but only eject if it is confirmed that it was true targeting. Targeting vs. an accidental hit at the shoulder or chin should not be treated all the same IMO.

You bring up a very valid point. While it is virtually impossible to determine intent, I like the idea of needing confirmation for ejection.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Joey Bosa from tOSU just ejected for targeting.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[Toga]

I certainly understand the rule to protect the players from potential serious injury. While Burgess may have clipped a helmet, it did not appear that he purposely accelerated into the receiver, i.e., true targeting. He was there to make a hit as a football player trying to stop the receiver who was still moving forward but appeared to slow a bit, i.e., I doubt it was malicious. Plus the replay only said the "pay stands" not confirmed. They should modify the rule to not make it all or nothing for ejection. In this case, there should be the 15 yd unsportsmanlike penalty, but only eject if it is confirmed that it was true targeting. Targeting vs. an accidental hit at the shoulder or chin should not be treated all the same IMO.

I agree with this but not so much where the player is defenseless. In this case he was totally defenseless as he was already in the grasp of another defender. So while I agree with your sentiment, in this instance I agree with the decision.

 

[iommi]

Joey Bosa from tOSU just ejected for targeting.

The problem is you can't judge severity. It's all relative. Bosa led with his head but it was not a dirty hit and was not vicious at all. Not all hits when a player leads with his helmet are intended to harm. Bosa just had poor technique on that hit, not vicious intent, and now the best defensive player in college football has to watch from the locker room.

 

[ForCuseSake]

The problem is you can't judge severity. It's all relative. Bosa led with his head but it was not a dirty hit and was not vicious at all. Not all hits when a player lead with his helmet are intended to harm. Bosa just had poor technique on that hit, not vicious intent, and now the best defensive player in college football has to watch from the locker room.

I didn't think it was a dirty hit intended to injure the ND QB.

But targeting exists to encourage tacklers to keep their head up and not use it as an instrument to inflict maximum damage.

The bolded part of your post is precisely what the rule is trying to eliminate from the sport - the desire to lead with the crown of the helmet. It's as much for the tacklers as it is for the ball carriers. Bosa was lucky he didn't injure his neck.

 

[hoopsupstate]

Hearing what the current mindset is with Ohio State players, Bosa might have done this intentionally to get kicked out of the game to avoid possible injury. Elliot shouldn't even be allowed to play in this game after his incident earlier in the week. Ohio State is starting to look a little like the mess Meyer had at Florida.

 

[Crusty]

The problem is you can't judge severity. It's all relative. Bosa led with his head but it was not a dirty hit and was not vicious at all. Not all hits when a player lead with his helmet are intended to harm. Bosa just had poor technique on that hit, not vicious intent, and now the best defensive player in college football has to watch from the locker room.

The rule is intended to prevent injuries and intent does not and should not matter.

 

[McNabb2Brominski]

The problem is you can't judge severity. It's all relative. Bosa led with his head but it was not a dirty hit and was not vicious at all. Not all hits when a player lead with his helmet are intended to harm. Bosa just had poor technique on that hit, not vicious intent, and now the best defensive player in college football has to watch from the locker room.

I think they should handle targeting penalties like basketball handles flagrant fouls. A targeting 1 penalty is a less vicious targeting hit -- similar to Bosa's hit. It would be 15 yard penalty and 2 targeting 1 penalties by the same player = an ejection. A targeting 2 penalty is an obvious vicious helmet to helmet hit and is automatic ejection.

 

[JoeSU]

Hearing what the current mindset is with Ohio State players, Bosa might have done this intentionally to get kicked out of the game to avoid possible injury. Elliot shouldn't even be allowed to play in this game after his incident earlier in the week. Ohio State is starting to look a little like the mess Meyer had at Florida.

Bosa didn't seem very ipset about being disqualified.

 

[iommi]

The rule is intended to prevent injuries and intent does not and should not matter.

I think they should handle targeting penalties like basketball handles flagrant fouls. A targeting 1 penalty is a less vicious targeting hit -- similar to Bosa's hit. It would be 15 yard penalty and 2 targeting 1 penalties by the same player = an ejection. A targeting 2 penalty is an obvious vicious helmet to helmet hit and is automatic ejection.

I get that, Crusty. My point is that's where I have a problem with the rule, which brings me to McNabb2Brominski's post. His solution is perfect. They DO need to clean up technique to help prevent injuries but the auto-ejection is too severe since not all hits are equal. For example, the hit against Dungey should've been an ejection, the one by Bosa should've been a flagrant 1.

There was a hit in a bowl game a few days ago where a player was ejected and the technique actually looked a form tackle. It's ridiculous. I'm all about making this violent game safer but it's not being policed correctly.

 

[iommi]

Hearing what the current mindset is with Ohio State players, Bosa might have done this intentionally to get kicked out of the game to avoid possible injury. Elliot shouldn't even be allowed to play in this game after his incident earlier in the week. Ohio State is starting to look a little like the mess Meyer had at Florida.

Wow, I doubt a competitor like Bosa would want out of a game like this. He did seem nonchalant about the ejection but it could've been him handling it with class and composure.

 

[rrlbees]

Joey Bosa from tOSU just ejected for targeting.

I thought the other one was worse.

 

[rrlbees]

I think they should handle targeting penalties like basketball handles flagrant fouls. A targeting 1 penalty is a less vicious targeting hit -- similar to Bosa's hit. It would be 15 yard penalty and 2 targeting 1 penalties by the same player = an ejection. A targeting 2 penalty is an obvious vicious helmet to helmet hit and is automatic ejection.

That's a good idea. They should implement something like that or exactly that.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Wow, I doubt a competitor like Bosa would want out of a game like this. He did seem nonchalant about the ejection but it could've been him handling it with class and composure.

He's imagining life as a Cleveland Brown next season.

 

[Crusty]

I get that, Crusty. My point is that's where I have a problem with the rule, which brings me to McNabb2Brominski's post. His solution is perfect. They DO need to clean up technique to help prevent injuries but the auto-ejection is too severe since not all hits are equal. For example, the hit against Dungey should've been an ejection, the one by Bosa should've been a flagrant 1.

There was a hit in a bowl game a few days ago where a player was ejected and the technique actually looked a form tackle. It s ridiculous. I'm all about making this violent game safer but it's not being policed correctly.

I don't hate that idea, but it may just create more controversies. I like the idea suggeste by SUintheVille that ejection requires a confirmation rather than a "rule stands".