The Targeting Rule is Not About Player Safety

[FishDuck Article]

The NCAA recently announced changes to the targeting rule. These changes are not yet in effect, but there will be a vote in April to adopt these proposals. In short, there are really no changes, other than that players can now appeal their suspension from a targeting penalty issued during the second half of a game to the conference. This ...

 

Read the full article here...

[Haywarduck]

Great article and, once again, the NCAA shows they really are not up to managing college football. 

[JDuck]

Totally agree.  A couple things...what if someone gets pushed into the ball carrier multiple times, and it's incidental, unintentional, not-their-fault 10 times in a row?  Tracking these things is fine but punishment because it happens to them in that way should not be a thing.  The Vontaze Burfict type players where it seems more intentional, tracking that and racking up penalties may be appropriate.

 

Also, he goes low to use shoulder, then the ball carrier dips...that's equal blame, not on the defender.  Yes, overall these need to be looked at much more closely before just assessing a penalty and ejecting players, almost always the defender.  Sitting out next week's first half has been wrong 90% of the time.  

 

 

[David Marsh]

On 3/15/2022 at 6:58 AM, JDuck said:

and it's incidental, unintentional, not-their-fault 10 times in a row? 

I do think an appeals system is good and a super super minor step in the right direction with the new proposed rule changes. 

 

I think an appeals system would fit right into my proposed rule as well. If we are looking at that much incidental contact in a short period of time though that player does need to be checked out for head injury regardless. 

 

Also... Absolutely agree about offensive players lowering their heads and changing contact. I know there were a couple targeting calls that did not stand this year because of it and I was trying to remember what games those were in to try and snag some screenshots but I couldn't find them. I think the Bridges picture is decent... He was low and staying low and the offensive players helmet dipped and resulted in some contact but in no means malicious. 

[Mudslide]

Fine article, David.  Many thanks.

 

How about a 25 yard penalty for targeting with no suspension unless OBVIOUSLY malicious?

[Jon Joseph]

Terrific article David, thank you.

 

Could not agree more regarding the 'flagrant foul' vs 'unintentional helmet-to-helmet contact.' Especially with review in place that automatically confirms or denies targeting.

 

Football practice is hard; it is often a drudgery. Taking a player out of the game for 'incidental contact' is unfair to the player and his team.

[JDuck]

On 3/15/2022 at 9:17 AM, David Marsh said:

I do think an appeals system is good and a super super minor step in the right direction with the new proposed rule changes. 

 

I think an appeals system would fit right into my proposed rule as well. If we are looking at that much incidental contact in a short period of time though that player does need to be checked out for head injury regardless. 

 

Also... Absolutely agree about offensive players lowering their heads and changing contact. I know there were a couple targeting calls that did not stand this year because of it and I was trying to remember what games those were in to try and snag some screenshots but I couldn't find them. I think the Bridges picture is decent... He was low and staying low and the offensive players helmet dipped and resulted in some contact but in no means malicious. 

Yeah, I just want the appeal to happen on the field, someone in the booth, ref on the sideline camera, whatever, have the brains to see that it is one of these situations and not call anything.  If both need a doctor clearance, they may be able to get that while they do the review and be ready next play even.  Like all play reviews, try not to make it take 17 years.  Obviously rule changes are needed, and ref training.  

 

Having the brains to may a good call is always a concern when you have Crap-12 officials, especially in football.

[Jon Joseph]

On 3/15/2022 at 9:04 AM, Haywarduck said:

Great article and, once again, the NCAA shows they really are not up to managing college football. 

The NCAA will not be governing G5/P5 CFB in the near future. There is a Transition Committee, co-chaired by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and the Ohio U AD, working on a format for G5/P5 CFB governance free of the NCAA. 

 

This review encompasses enforcement, eligibility, APR progress, roster size, targeting, the whole enchilada. Will there be uniformity from conference to conference? For example, will the targeting rule be more 'liberal' in the SEC than in the B1G? If so, what rule will be used when an SEC team plays a B1G team?

 

What this Committee suggests (given the financial differences I am hard pressed to see the same rules and regulations for the G5 and the P5) and what is ultimately approved, will materially impact CFB and the future of CFB.

 

 

[McDuck]

If the review takes more than 60 seconds rule it incidental contact and no penalty.  If it requires 15 slow motion replays from various angles to determine "intent" they're guessing.

[Drake]

Targeting rules in many cases will always be somewhat difficult. Safety and concussions are a real problem. Targeting just scratches the surface with player safety. 

 

The problem with concussion protocol in football is that most concussions are not diagnosed. Many players have a team first mentality and will continue to play through a concussion. It’s only a headache, or I only blacked out a short time is “just part of the game.” 
 

Perhaps when sensors are installed in helmets and then properly monitored will concussions be properly diagnosed. It may end up being rather alarming the number of players that sit out games under those circumstances. 

[EastBayDuckDad]

I couldn't agree more with the article and this take on PAC12 vs SEC officiating. The application of the existing rule is arbitrary, alters game outcomes and in the PAC12 it borders on virtue signaling by officials and the league office.

 

On 3/15/2022 at 9:18 AM, cartm25 said:

I hope the rule can be adjusted so that it's applied consistently.

 

It was annoying to watch Oregon v. Stanford and see the rule's impact to the Ducks, then turn on an SEC game later and have no targeting called, and if it was called, it was obvious to everyone; none of the incidental contact garbage.

 

[David Marsh]

On 3/15/2022 at 9:44 AM, Drake said:

Perhaps when sensors are installed in helmets and then properly monitored will concussions be properly diagnosed. It may end up being rather alarming the number of players that sit out games under those circumstances. 

Sensors would be the biggest game changer. 

 

A senor itself might not tell the full story but if a strong enough impact is detected then just pulling the players off the field would do a lot for player safety. 

[DanLduck]

Thank you David. Great thoughts. 

Clearly you are so right about this simply being safety theater, like so many other things done these days.

 

I was very disappointed when I read they weren't making any significant changes.

 

My biggest gripes are 1. When the offensive player lowers his head 

2. Incidental contact (like with KT)

3. And late hit flagrant fouls. They often throw a flag, but the guy stays in the game. Those also should be penalized like targeting. Those late hits often result in more injuries. 

 

Thanks again, great stuff.

[David Marsh]

On 3/15/2022 at 11:30 AM, DanLduck said:

3. And late hit flagrant fouls. They often throw a flag, but the guy stays in the game. Those also should be penalized like targeting. Those late hits often result in more injuries. 

Absolutely those flagrant late hits should actually be punished to a greater degree than they are... Incedental targeting is nothing compared to an actual flagrant late hit. 

[WiseKwacker]

Excellent article, David. Thanks for the effort. 

 

In addition to the points you made, what really frustrates me about the current interpretation of "the rule" is when a targeting call is made and then reviewed. When we, as fans, see the replay, it becomes obvious that the hit was not truly an intentional targeting hit (see Thibs v. Stanford). Then, the officials come out of the review and "confirm" the call. As that happens over and over again, it says to me the rule needs to be changed and/or the officials need to be better trained to differentiate between intentional targeting and incidental "targeting."

[nw777b]

While watching highlights this morning I noticed there was a significant head to head collision during Oregon’s third TD against Arizona that was not called.

 

It may not technically include ALL of the rules requirements, but the defender didn't make any effort to change his helmet position. I actually feel he took the brunt of the impact.

 

Ironically, on the next series for Arizona,  Manning was ejected for targeting. 

 

This thread has some great facts and opinions regarding the rule and inconsistent in-game decisions by on field and off field officials. 

 

I don't know the best way to improve the process. But I agree with the title. It's ruining the game.

 

SOMETHING has to change!