Ending or Changing the Targeting Rule?

[David Marsh]

The Targeting Rule may be changed at the end of this season. I am glad a few years ago they changed it to not automatically eject players with a targeting penalty and I do like how targeting is automatically reviewed. This rule really does seem to have good intentions to protect players and avoid head-to-head contact. Though I do feel there needs to be a change in that intent needs to be taken into consideration.

 

Did the player, usually a defender, try and avoid the contact? Did the offensive player lower their head, should that be offensive targeting? We saw an Arizona runningback lower his head and Mykael Wright was initially called for targeting as he couldn't change his tackling approach in time, thankfully the penalty did not stick.

 

My proposal for a rule change...

 

There should be a rule to avoid head-to-head collisions, it just isn't safe to encourage this behavior. Granted, some times these hits do happen and players do try to avoid them from happening. If the goal is with player safety in mind then then when a head-to-head collision occurs with non-malicious intent (aka by accident), then both players should be taken off the field and trainers should give them a look over... this is for safety after all and make sure there wasn't a major concussion. Then the player(s) who initiated the hit should receive a non-yardage penalty flag where if they are in another head-to-head collision within the same game they are THEN removed from the game and flagged with targeting.

 

If there is malicious intent on the play... and you can usually tell... then flag the player for targeting because that is dangerous behavior.

 

I know many out there don't want anything done if there are head-to-head collisions but the sport of football will NOT survive if that behavior is allowed. It isn't safe for any of the players involved. Though I am in agreement, the current targeting rule needs to change it can hurt teams too much for what are for the most part strange circumstances.

 

Wright didn't commit targeting against the Arizona player last Saturday, his original angle for the tackle was good and he did try to lead with his shoulder. The Arizona player lowered his head and changed the angle in which contact occurred. Players should be allowed to play when mistakes happen, especially when it is out of their control.

[Duckdude]

I gotta say: I like your ideas!  They sound like a reasonable improvement…….and include an “element of causation” of “men’s rea”, I.e. intent(showing off my UO education there—-see? I did pay attention sometimes).  I like it!

[Duckpop22]

I'm about to do something I don't like to do which is find fault with one idea, without offering up anything better. But gauging intent, in other words reading the mind of the player, is hard as heck to actually do. The targeting rule is a work in progress, and may be one for a long time, because there are so many variables in play. Strides have been made since the beginning where defensive players were making the Walk of Shame several times a game and being tossed for the first half of the next game!

 

I hope improvements in the equipment will go a long way toward solving the problem, because I don't know if on-field legislation is even possible. Choices are being made in less than a split second, because this collision sport is being played by ever-faster, ever-bigger players who have as much courage as any generation of players before them. The officials are already at the edge of their abilities, but now we want them to read minds when they may not have been in position to see the hit in the first place.

 

I guess I don't know if "you can usually tell" about malicious intent. I watch a lot of games, and malicious intent just seems to be a coin flip. Hence, my dilemma. It is a good, and necessary, conversation, though.

[Jon Joseph]

Great take David!

 

Before the current targeting mess, refs called personal fouls for improper hits when warranted. Asking refs to make the same kind of decision regarding ejection, especially with reply reviewing the call, is not too big an ask for the refs.

 

When a ball carrier drops his head at the point of tackle, and helmet to helmet is incidental, no kid should be kicked out of a game.

 

Cincinnati at Indiana. Incidental contact with the QB led to the Hoosiers best guy on D being thrown out and completely changed the calculus and outcome of the game. 

 

The rule is being reviewed but I expect no change before the 2022 season.

[Charles Fischer]

On 9/29/2021 at 11:29 PM, Duckpop22 said:

Choices are being made in less than a split second

It is natural for a ball carrier to lower his head when he sees a defender projecting at him.  Thus a tackle meant with the defender driving his head into the chest or shoulder of the ball carrier ends up being helmet-to-helmet.

 

I agree with Duckpop22, in that this is evolving, but I like how David brought this up for discussion.