Targeting (OSU game)

LELL

Active member
The OSU game should be an example of the targeting rules, but they go it wrong, in my view.
Nebraska # 5 was borderline and no violent intent and he shouldn't have been kicked out. Now #8 got away with targeting when he went for Olave's head when that fumble occurred. I was crazy upset when that happened. At the time, #5's targeting was nothing compared to #8. Then he finally got kicked out with a targeting.
 

EagleGuy

Well-known member
I get your frustration. (I feel your pain). :) Maybe, we should just let the computers make the calls.

I get confused with the pass interference calls/no-calls. Hell, just let them tackle each other if they want to. First one up and to the ball wins!

☁ Old man shouting at cloud.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Ill stick with it's a work in progress. I pretty much agree with OP's description of the different hits. But #5 did tip his helmet. He intended to hit with it. Need to break that habit from the kids. They see, they do.
 

LELL

Active member
I get your frustration. (I feel your pain). :) Maybe, we should just let the computers make the calls.

I get confused with the pass interference calls/no-calls. Hell, just let them tackle each other if they want to. First one up and to the ball wins!

☁ Old man shouting at cloud.
I'm not frustrated at all. It was Neb players that got thrown out. I was just trying to say this game should be reviewed and be a teaching moment for refs. That's all. While I still contend #5 was borderline, but #8 got away with one (On Olave hit where he fumbled) and then he did get nailed for it on another head hunting hit and tossed and he deserved it. That's all. No more, no less.
 

USA70PP

Well-known member
I've always had a problem with the defender being called for targeting when the ball carrier lowers his head just before contact. It seems to me the ball carrier should bear some responsibility. Maybe offsetting targeting calls? No penalty?
 

Gh0st

Well-known member
I've heard the argument there should be tiers of targeting penalties, like there used to be for facemask. Not the worst idea. The truly egregious penalties can carry the 15 yard penalty, DQ, and half suspension while the vast majority maybe a 5-10 yard penalty, no DQ, no half suspension.
 

EagleGuy

Well-known member
I've always had a problem with the defender being called for targeting when the ball carrier lowers his head just before contact. It seems to me the ball carrier should bear some responsibility. Maybe offsetting targeting calls? No penalty?
Good point. Seems like it would be difficult to tackle someone who is knee-high to you without lowering yourself, too.

I've heard the argument there should be tiers of targeting penalties, like there used to be for facemask. Not the worst idea. The truly egregious penalties can carry the 15 yard penalty, DQ, and half suspension while the vast majority maybe a 5-10 yard penalty, no DQ, no half suspension.
Didn't know there are no longer tiers for face-mask. (Snooze). Bring it back. Tiers for targeting sound good, too. Some of these calls are pissy-ant.
 
.
Top