Targeting

[Eric15]

Those who played a college sport would probably understand

You still wear your high school letterman jacket around as an adult, don't you?

 

[007]

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

Good post. This is exactly the point, Crusty.

I will also add that anyone who as ever played the game at or above the HS level knows how to use his helmet to blow somebody up when you get the chance.

 

[Toga]

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.

Maybe sits 10 plays on a Targeting 1.

 

[Crusty]

Maybe sits 10 plays on a Targeting 1.

Or a quarter or half.

 

[Toga]

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.

Good post. Frankly the hit against Dungey byCMU was border line criminal and should have resulted in a 1 to 2 game suspension. A Targeting 3 if you will.

 

[alphaorange]

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.

Too bad. That's called spearing and he should know better by now.

 

[alphaorange]

Some of you people have a real blood lust. Football is a physical violent game by nature and it is a great game. It doesn't need to be barbaric, though, to be great. Some of the comments about how it may as well be two hand touch are as idiotic hyperbole as it gets. The game as it exists in their minds simply cannot exist for much longer. That's a fact. I have been opposed to the "blowing up or lighting up" of defenseless players for a while. For those that can't deal with football without those types of hits, there's always cage fighting.

 

[iommi]

Too bad. That's called spearing and he should know better by now.

I agree, it was spearing. This thread is about targeting. It should've been a personal foul, not an ejection.

 

[alphaorange]

I agree, it was spearing. This thread is about targeting. It should've been a personal foul, not an ejection.

I would agree.

 

[DeGrozz]

I agree, it was spearing. This thread is about targeting. It should've been a personal foul, not an ejection.

Isn't the rule: "No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet." (http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342)

If so, it was clearly targeting:

 

[iommi]

Isn't the rule: "No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet." (http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342)

If so, it was clearly targeting:

Yes, according to how the rule is written, it was targeting. I want the rule changed, as to what I said earlier.