FishDuck Article Administrator No. 1 Share Posted October 10, 2021 Targeting penalties are ruining college football. These well-intentioned fouls have sucked the enjoyment out of the game. The penalty is too subjective, punishment too harsh. Something’s gotta change. Every team has experienced a questionable targeting call. Last week, the No. 8 Oregon Ducks had two targeting penalties in their loss to the unranked Stanford Cardinal, including one joy-killing penalty during ... Read the full article here... 1 Two Sites: FishDuck and the Our Beloved Ducks forum, The only "Forum with Decorum!" And All-Volunteer? What a wonderful community of Duck fans! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregon112 No. 2 Share Posted October 10, 2021 It's a good rule, but only when the offender is using his helmet like a spear to knock someone out. Look at this video starting at about the 30 second mark. It was when Barner got his head speared by a Wazzu kickoff coverage team. https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2014/8/20/6049695/kenjon-barner-kick-returner-chip-kelly-oregon-ducks-eagles Calling a targeting penalty for something like this is necessary to cut down on planned violence. But the call on Kayvon was pure crap. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Ducky No. 3 Share Posted October 10, 2021 I’ve noticed targeting is never called on an offensive player who lowers his head when being tackled by a defensive player. But if the defensive player lowers his head while being rammed by a 220 Ib running back that lowers his the call will most certainly go against the 180 led DB. Seem fair to you? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haywarduck Moderator No. 4 Share Posted October 10, 2021 The objective of penalties isn't just to be punitive, it is to change behavior. It seems, looking at the statistics, the penalty isn't changing behavior, it is just being punitive. It also seems the refs are looking for it more, trying to make the call. It is almost like the speed trap kind of call, is there a quota, or bonus for calling it? I actually think players are trying to miss others helmets, but it happens and you can't judge intent, and that is what is being asked of the refs. The other item, higlighted, is the other player lowering his head, this needs to be taken into account. Also was the offending player pushed, or out of balance. Too often, it seems, the outcome, he touched the helmet, is judged and not the complete picture. Maybe make the offending player wear a leather helmet for the rest of the game, that might change behavior. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuckPhan19 No. 5 Share Posted October 10, 2021 How bout reshaping CFB’a targeting rules after the NBA: common foul, flagrant 1 or flagrant 2, with an ejection only for the F2 varietal, ie with an intent element? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandownbytheriverduck No. 6 Share Posted October 10, 2021 The targeting rule was needed to effect behavior but the ejections and half game suspensions should only be applicable for demonstrably intentional misconduct which is blatantly obvious to both replay booth and field observants alike. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 7 Share Posted October 10, 2021 And nothing from the Pac-12 office about those calls against us in the Stanford game? C'mon George...get it right! Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 8 Share Posted October 10, 2021 On 10/10/2021 at 12:27 PM, Charles Fischer said: And nothing from the Pac-12 office about those calls against us in the Stanford game? C'mon George...get it right! Never a discouraging word against refs no matter how bad they may be. Although twice this season the SEC has owned up to blow calls. Simple to me? Targeting with intent to injure, disqualification. Incidental targeting, no disqualification and no ipso facto unnecessary roughness penalty. Every targeting call is reviewed. Make this part of the review process. Far too draconian to kick a guy out of a game for contact that results as a normal consequence of playing the game of football. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh No. 9 Share Posted October 10, 2021 In another post I wrote out how I'd change the rule. But in short targeting is supposed to be about player safety. So if there is helmet to helmet contact, even incidental have both players leave the field for a play or two to be checked out and cleared. You could also "flag" them for no penalty yards but as a sort of warning or marker. If either player is involved in another significant helmet on helmet contact then consider pulling them from the game and maybe awarding penalty yards. Then if there is anything outright blatantly bad... Such as lowering the head yards out in such a manner to inflict a hit with the helmet then yeah... The current rule would be suited for that sort of thing. The problem is most targeting calls aren't on the obvious blatant and flagrant hits... It's on incidental contact. Especially when an offensive player lowers their head and the defensive player only has two choices. Not tackle at all to avoid the hit or tackle and risk targeting. That's not fair. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanLduck No. 10 Share Posted October 11, 2021 Well said. Targeting calls are getting carried away !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
