|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1160]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 774
Joined: 12/6/04
|
I was pulling for tcu, but how in the world was that not targeting?
Dec 31, 2022, 8:10 PM
|
|
they must have not wanted to hold the kickoff of the Georgia-osu game any longer. Awful.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4601]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3805
Joined: 5/8/22
|
Re: I was pulling for tcu, but how in the world was that not targeting?
Dec 31, 2022, 8:11 PM
|
|
Well isn’t the okay supposed to stop once there is an illegal forward pass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4601]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3805
Joined: 5/8/22
|
Re: I was pulling for tcu, but how in the world was that not targeting?
Dec 31, 2022, 8:11 PM
|
|
Play not okay
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1160]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 774
Joined: 12/6/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4978]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 5282
Joined: 6/2/03
|
Re: I was pulling for tcu, but how in the world was that not targeting?
Dec 31, 2022, 8:12 PM
|
|
It looked like targeting to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I was pulling for tcu, but how in the world was that not targeting?
Dec 31, 2022, 8:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4878
Joined: 12/22/03
|
Re: I was pulling for tcu, but how in the world was that not targeting?
Dec 31, 2022, 8:15 PM
|
|
One thing is for sure, we’ve had targeting called for less. Very subjective call
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [36450]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18324
Joined: 12/6/13
|
It could have went either way.
Dec 31, 2022, 8:32 PM
|
|
But if they called it and Michigan went on to win that would have been a big deal. Better to just let it go from a referee perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [245]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/21/18
|
Re: I was pulling for tcu, but how in the world was that not targeting?
Dec 31, 2022, 8:14 PM
|
|
Contact was on the side of the helmet, not crown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [66282]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33390
Joined: 12/3/03
|
The offensive player was about a foot off the ground, but
Dec 31, 2022, 8:17 PM
|
|
still not down. Tell me how the defender was supposed to get to him without lowering his head. Even so, he hit him in the upper back, NOT in the head. Not targeting. It should never have even been a question. I wonder if there was a Meechigan alum in the review booth that made that request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46433
Joined: 4/23/00
|
It may have been, by rule, but I don't like the rule.
Dec 31, 2022, 8:21 PM
|
|
Targeting should be reserved for, well ... targeting. Meaning when one player targets another player's head/helmet with the crown of their own helmet. The very word "targeting" implies intent. The way the rule is written now, no intent, no actual targeting is required. Instead, a defender is required to avoid making helmet to helmet contact with an offensive player; the burden is almost entirely on him not to not target, but to avoid incidental contact, and often it's virtually beyond his control in the normal course of playing football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1160]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 774
Joined: 12/6/04
|
I hope you see this reply. THANK YOU. Your comments make
Dec 31, 2022, 8:29 PM
|
|
The most sense of any explanation, discussion, etc that I’ve seen. I will steal your logic in future debates!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46433
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Seen and appreciated. I understand the liability concerns,
Jan 1, 2023, 12:02 PM
|
|
as well as the genuine concern for the safety of the players, but at some point, we all have to acknowledge that there is unavoidable, inherent risk in playing football, and the game cannot be played without that risk, and all who play and participate are accepting that risk and cannot blame anyone else. If you don't want to assume that risk, then don't play football.
Disclaimer: If the powers that be know about specific risks and dangers to participants, but do not reveal them and instead conceal them, then yes, they should be held accountable. Also, there should be reasonable rules in place to prevent players from intentionally inflicting potential injuries, as well as reasonable rules to protect players and prevent unecessary, easily avoidable injuries in general (for instance, all players must wear a helmet); but those rules must be fair and clear and simple to follow and enforce. That is not the case with targeting. Rather, targeting is a convoluted rule that is difficult to follow and enforce, and often unfairly punishes players for just playing football and unavoidably making helmet-to-helmet contact with another player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23391]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5931
Joined: 3/28/09
|
How can the refs know the intent of the player
Jan 1, 2023, 12:18 PM
[ in reply to It may have been, by rule, but I don't like the rule. ] |
|
that makes contact with the crown of his helmet? Ask him?
But what I don't get is that it's always the defensive player called for targeting. You see QBs, running backs, and receivers lower their head at the last second causing helmet to helmet contact and the defender is always called. Then the refs have to determine if he was defenseless. It's takes too long and is a judgmental call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [52027]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17220
Joined: 5/21/08
|
Saw one play yesterday (don't remember which game)
Jan 1, 2023, 12:24 PM
|
|
where the defender had already made his move, aiming at the RBs midsection and then the RB lowered his head to the same level and it was crown-to-crown. Not much difference but who was to blame? Good no call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46433
Joined: 4/23/00
|
They can't, but as you say, it's a judgement call. But hey,
Jan 1, 2023, 9:23 PM
[ in reply to How can the refs know the intent of the player ] |
|
I'm not the one that named it "targeting", but it's impossible to target anything without intent. Without intent, there can be no targeting. All of the indicators of targeting require intent: Launching, crouching and rising upward, etc., none happen by accident. Besides, if a player can't bend at the waist, lean forward and lower their shoulder which automatically lowers the head and causes the helmet to be the most forward point of the body, then they have to play in an impossibly unnatural, counter instinctive way, and it's not only unrealistic, it's unfair to ask or expect them to do so.
So, while there should be rules to protect players from unnecessary injury, and from intentional injury caused by other players, players should not be punished for simply playing football. Granted, we can't always be 100% certain there was intent, but if it isn't reasonably clear and obvious, there should be no flag for targeting, and players need to accept that risk when they step on the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6121]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3831
Joined: 7/30/18
|
Re: I was pulling for tcu, but how in the world was that not targeting?
Jan 1, 2023, 12:16 PM
|
|
One view showed the helmet not even touching the offensive player. So there’s that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
