Targeting Call

[gmoney44]

That was the thing for me with the hit on Cook. The defensive guy wasn't making an attempt to tackle. He launched his shoulder into his head in a way that was dangerous to the neck. If he wasn't crossing his arms over his chest and trying to lay him out with his shoulder, it would be ok. Make an attempt to tackle, not hit.

That’s what pisses me off. You still see guys lowering their head and launching themselves blindly with the crown of the helmet and their shoulders. There is no attempt to tackle. They are trying to destroy the ball carrier.

I hope my boys don’t play football because I can’t imagine watching them play Russian Roulette every game and practice. Football has regressed back in terms of protecting players this year.

 

[Consigliere]

The issue I have is with the process that allows the flag to be picked up after review. I understand the desire to review every targeting call as the penalty to the player is very severe. But the intentional blow to the head or neck that brought the flag out should still be enforced as a personal foul. There is a significant percentage of instances where review reverses a call of targeting on the field presumably because the review official is looking for indisputable visual evidence that targeting HAS been committed before banishing a player from the game. So it seems to indicate the officials on the field are unable to consistently call targeting correctly . Perhaps the call on the field should just be for an unnecessary roughness personal foul and the replay booth should buzz down if they want to review for targeting.

 

[Millhouse]

It was right in front of me. I had no doubt it was a target. To me it was the perfect example of a target. I have not seen or heard any report on the call. What happened??

What happened was this league is an idiotic backwards hillbilly social club. I'd rather have less money, worse players, and play in games that aren't stupid. It feels like an absolute waste of time to be in this league

 

[Millhouse]

It was right in front of me. I had no doubt it was a target. To me it was the perfect example of a target. I have not seen or heard any report on the call. What happened??

Also, he did the obvious hold the head concussion move, shouldn't have kept playing, fumbled again later

With these games bring so pointless, I don't like keeping guys out there.

Angeli shouldn't have been out there. Calf strains lead to Achilles tears. The season is over now. Then you have this kid taking more shots after obvious targeting. It's like we thought he wasn't targeted either

 

[sufandu]

someone blew a whistle because they felt progress had been stopped. yet that was never discussed on the broadcast. I always thought a blown whistle trumps all.

Oh, I didn't hear that. Yeah, if the whistle blew, everything should have been dead right there. Did the hit come after you heard the whistle? It would've been a late hit, if it did.

 

[DonutHole]

This rule needs to be changed. Especially in light of CTE, and especially when they announced this week that the Park Avenue shooter who was trying to get to the NFL offices did indeed have CTE after studying his brain. This person only played through HS, so what does this tell you about all of those hits to the head? To me any helmet to helmet on any portion of the head/helmet should be targeting. Unless the player is blocked into the other player.

Hitting a defenseless player. If not targeting, a penalty for unnecessary roughness. They missed a targeting call during the Penn State game last night. Helmet to helmet hit that even disturbed my wife who hates football!

 

[Chip]

I think the nuances of targeting have gotten everyone away from the reason targeting started. It was to protect players. Cook was a defenseless receiver going down who took an unnecessary shot to the head.

They spend all that time looking at how the crown of his helmet hit the player and just completely ignored that it’s a personal foul for unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver.

ACC needs to look at this. They didn’t protect Cook’s brain and so that player now thinks he can do that again.

 

[TexanMark]

Piedmont Protection Society

 

[Millhouse]

What also sucks about it was that it was obviously a hit they didn't want in the game THAT TOOK THE BALL AWAY FROM US

You have to come up with some kind of call that at least doesn't reward the team for that hit. Common sense

might be one of those unintended consequences of a very harsh penalty making them less likely to call the foul

If you murder everyone who targets, they will never call it, and the players will quickly learn

 

[upperdeck]

Refs have a clear out if they want it..

Call unnecessary roughness with targeting. Much like they call roughing the QB with targeting, Then they still enforce that part even if the targeting goes away. That is really the intent of the rule.

Much like punching is not really allowed but now guys do it to attack the ball and never get called for it even if they miss the ball and hit the player.

 

[GreekFreak]

I think the nuances of targeting have gotten everyone away from the reason targeting started. It was to protect players. Cook was a defenseless receiver going down who took an unnecessary shot to the head.

They spend all that time looking at how the crown of his helmet hit the player and just completely ignored that it’s a personal foul for unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver.

ACC needs to look at this. They didn’t protect Cook’s brain and so that player now thinks he can do that again.

Fantastic post!

 

[OttosShoes]

Also, he did the obvious hold the head concussion move, shouldn't have kept playing, fumbled again later

With these games bring so pointless, I don't like keeping guys out there.

Angeli shouldn't have been out there. Calf strains lead to Achilles tears. The season is over now. Then you have this kid taking more shots after obvious targeting. It's like we thought he wasn't targeted either

Yeah, it's easy to focus on the refs, the conference and Duke, but there's also an appearance we fielded a player in the aftermath of a concussion. I dunno. This whole thing sucks.

Fran even said as much.

Fran is a good sport and extremely reluctant to publicly blame anybody but himself. He also literally had the cameras pointed at him when he said that--if he had cried foul in a 38-3 press conference, the narrative isn't 'bad refs', it's 'Fran Brown is a sore loser'. He said the right thing, but I don't believe we actually know what he thinks.

 

[Scooch]

I think the nuances of targeting have gotten everyone away from the reason targeting started. It was to protect players. Cook was a defenseless receiver going down who took an unnecessary shot to the head.

They spend all that time looking at how the crown of his helmet hit the player and just completely ignored that it’s a personal foul for unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver.

ACC needs to look at this. They didn’t protect Cook’s brain and so that player now thinks he can do that again.

Exactly. The hit late in the Oregon-PSU game last night was similar. PSU defender purposefully led with his helmet directly to the head of the Oregon receiver.

What the hell happened to all that "heads up" tackling technique stuff that the NCAA was so eager to pimp a few seasons ago?

The rule should be simple: tackle a guy via the head by leading with your helmet, shoulder or arm and it's a penalty. Make exceptions for truly incidental contact.

 

[sufandu]

Exactly. The hit late in the Oregon-PSU game last night was similar. PSU defender purposefully led with his helmet directly to the head of the Oregon receiver.

What the hell happened to all that "heads up" tackling technique stuff that the NCAA was so eager to pimp a few seasons ago?

The rule should be simple: tackle a guy via the head by leading with your helmet, shoulder or arm and it's a penalty. Make exceptions for truly incidental contact.

And it needs to go both ways. The offensive players need to keep their heads up too. How often do we see a guy dip his head just as he's about to get hit. That position is what leads to vertebral fractures and spinal cord injuries.

 

[Lukeyloo]

If Cook wasn’t a defenseless player there then I guess idk chit about football..

 

[JKinUtah]

between this hit on Cook not being targeting and the Clemson guy literally launching at Angeli last week and hitting him in the helmet and being ruled no targeting - I really have no clue what the intent of the rule is anymore. It seems so arbitrary and so far away from actually ensuring players brains don't get scrambled.

 

[tbonezone]

"A player with the ball who is already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped"

like in the 3rd qtr when Jobbity delivered a hit to the head of the duke qb who deslauriers had just wrapped up and brought down ?

 

[sufan59]

I think the nuances of targeting have gotten everyone away from the reason targeting started. It was to protect players. Cook was a defenseless receiver going down who took an unnecessary shot to the head.

They spend all that time looking at how the crown of his helmet hit the player and just completely ignored that it’s a personal foul for unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver.

ACC needs to look at this. They didn’t protect Cook’s brain and so that player now thinks he can do that again.

Yeah not to sound too much like a sore loser, but also I don’t think I’ve ever seen another team commit so many roughing the passer penalties (they were called, but still the fact that this happened at the frequency it did yesterday was excessive). Duke was tougher yesterday, but it wasn’t exactly all clean. We’ve been the softer team before and got dominated and the other team played a cleaner and disciplined game in the process. If I were the opposing coach of Duke next opponent, I would be on the officials early and often. We could’ve had players unnecessarily injured yesterday.

 

[Finwad32]

I’ve been around the game my entire life. If that’s not targeting because of semantics in a rule book, there shouldn’t be targeting. Guy’s held up and a defender launches into his head/neck area after momentum’s stopped.

It was a garbage call after review and it still is today.

 

[OttosShoes]

Ok I watched the replay. Just...wow.

I hope Johntay is OK today.

 

[sufandu]

I worry more about the neck than the head with that hit.

 

[wfschrec]

Did anyone see the non-call in the Wake vs GT game? Unreal … if the call was made GT loses. The officiating in this league is absolute dog food.

 

[VTAaron]

The call was not targeting as it wasn't helmet initial contact but a shoulder. At worst it should have been a personal foul, the fumble would have been gone. The play came in and most likely the player was going to dive, then pivoted his body and shoulder slammed him with his weight going down with someone already 3 on him. Thats a personal foul. It's not really the refs fault at this one. The problem is the review was about a targeting penalty and they cant introduce new ones after the fact and that is the problem. The headsnap was because of the shoulder slam, not a helmet contact with the one player but all the others as a result going down as he was bouncing off others. Hence the targeting call was wiped, the only last determination was that it was a true fumble as a result..

I dislike the call as well as all, but the Refs hands are tied, at least they should have called a targeting and personal foul, but you know what they should be inclusive in itself and the lesser imposed in a review if targeting is not found, but it is still flagrant. All they could do is discern the first and not impose the second probably due to replay rules.

Do I agree with it no, should the fumble stand, no. Should every replay find new fouls no, but if a severe is called a review should included to change it to something lesser, but that opens a new can of worms with play calling with fouls.

 

[Newhouser]

Was the ACC review booth on TV? Did they have clarity. I called the fumble pretty quick in my section as I think jis knee was on a foot.

 

[VTAaron]

Was the ACC review booth on TV? Did they have clarity. I called the fumble pretty quick in my section as I think jis knee was on a foot.

Definitely a fumble, but the review was about targeting, just can't introduce new penalties, but the other had the ball after so it was implicit in the review. It's sad a blatent personal foul results in a turnover given the video evidence.