Targeting Rule

A

adselder09

Well-known member
Coaches are attempting to put together a proposal to amend the targeting rule. They believe it should be split into two categories. Basically they want a Targeting 1 and Targeting 2, similar to college basketball.

Targeting 1 - unintentional helmet-to-helmet contact
Targeting 2 - intentional, malicious helmet-to-helmet contact

Targeting 1 would still incur a 15-yard penalty, but no ejection.
Targeting 2 would be a 15-yard penalty, plus ejection and also the potential for suspensions. Repeat offenders would be subject to suspensions as well.

Feel like they'd be opening up a can of worms trying to let officials and replay determine intent, though I like the option of keeping kids in the game vs ejecting them.
 
 
Helmet to helmet isnt new is it? I thought that had been around a while. Not sure.

I think he wants it to be a personal foul and have targeting be called as a helmet to helmet, 15 yd penalty. Pretty sure that was how it used to be called.

I don't like the whole you must sit out a whole game, which will lead to the next game. Maybe if they do it so many times they get suspended for a game. First offense is a little harsh to be suspending for part of the next game IMO. Maybe some sort of NBA technical foul rule is needed?
 
Arrogate said:
Helmet to helmet isnt new is it? I thought that had been around a while. Not sure.

I think he wants it to be a personal foul and have targeting be called as a helmet to helmet, 15 yd penalty. Pretty sure that was how it used to be called.

I don't like the whole you must sit out a whole game, which will lead to the next game. Maybe if they do it so many times they get suspended for a game. First offense is a little harsh to be suspending for part of the next game IMO. Maybe some sort of NBA technical foul rule is needed?
Click to expand...

It sounds like they want it to be akin to the nba flagrant foul rules. Tier 1 no ejection but 2 free throws and ball (here it’s 15 yard penalty, tier 2 is that plus ejection. I’d imagine if this comes to fruition there will be much less ejections, but probably more targeting penalties
 
I agree, I hate the ejection rule as is now. If it's a malicious hit it should be penalized but not every helmet-to-helmet hit is malicious. I think what their proposing above isn't bad, definitely better than what they have in place now.
 
adselder09 said:
I agree, I hate the ejection rule as is now. If it's a malicious hit it should be penalized but not every helmet-to-helmet hit is malicious. I think what their proposing above isn't bad, definitely better than what they have in place now.
Click to expand...

Joey Bosa had to have thrown out a WTF! or two Monday night if he was watching. As bad as the one that sent him to the sidelines in his final college game.
 
I believe the rule was put into place to begin to send a message to change the WAY football is played. Remember the days when defenders lowered their head and shoulders and made themselves a missile to "dislodge" the ball from the receiver. They didn't make a play on the ball, their intent was to dislodge the ball, or harm the defenseless receiver.
Personally, I've seen a change in how defense is being played the last few seasons. You start taking away the penalty, make it weaker and you'll lose all the ground you've gained.
I think the rule should remain as is. Remember folks this is all about player safety, not being punitive to your defensive player.
 
But there are plenty of instances where a hit is unintentional but still helmet-to-helmet. The launching from DBs into defenseless WRs, sure that's targeting. Two guys meeting in the hole is not, that's football.
 
adselder09 said:
But there are plenty of instances where a hit is unintentional but still helmet-to-helmet. The launching from DBs into defenseless WRs, sure that's targeting. Two guys meeting in the hole is not, that's football.
Click to expand...

I watch some, not a ton of college football, and for the most part, I don't believe I've seen an instance where a player was unjustly ejected. I think you have to take a hard line stance now, and let a few years go by before you start tinkering with the rules. It's a change in HOW The game is played on the defensive side. A few years ago, the crackback block was made illegal and it's slowly changed how player block in that situation.
I remember the days of Dick Butkus, Jack Tatum, Andre Waters...they TRIED to hurt people, intentionally. These guys today can make too much money to have some knucklehead trying to make a highlight hit.
 
14Red said:
I watch some, not a ton of college football, and for the most part, I don't believe I've seen an instance where a player was unjustly ejected. I think you have to take a hard line stance now, and let a few years go by before you start tinkering with the rules. It's a change in HOW The game is played on the defensive side. A few years ago, the crackback block was made illegal and it's slowly changed how player block in that situation.
I remember the days of Dick Butkus, Jack Tatum, Andre Waters...they TRIED to hurt people, intentionally. These guys today can make too much money to have some knucklehead trying to make a highlight hit.
Click to expand...

Targeting was put into place a "few" years ago. They have enough data to make the call one way or another.

Another poster mentioned the Joey Bosa hit in the Fiesta Bowl a couple seasons ago, the final play of his college career. There have been plenty of unjustly ejections just as there have been some hits where a player got away with it - Wash St vs USC this year.
 
14Red said:
I watch some, not a ton of college football, and for the most part, I don't believe I've seen an instance where a player was unjustly ejected. I think you have to take a hard line stance now, and let a few years go by before you start tinkering with the rules. It's a change in HOW The game is played on the defensive side. A few years ago, the crackback block was made illegal and it's slowly changed how player block in that situation.
I remember the days of Dick Butkus, Jack Tatum, Andre Waters...they TRIED to hurt people, intentionally. These guys today can make too much money to have some knucklehead trying to make a highlight hit.
Click to expand...

Really ??

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCJmDMMF_Q

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0uirSsFWzaw

While I believe some of the target calls are warranted, many are just as much the offensive player’s fault as the defenses ... yet you almost never see the offensive player ejected.

Also, targeting doesn’t have to be just helmet to helmet contact ... players are being ejected for leading with their shoulder to the chest ... but at the last second the offensive player ducts and is hit in the head.

I believe launching into player and making contact with helmet should be ejected ... but the other just a 15 yard penalty.
 
Last edited:
You want to keep the stupid rule? Enforce it on ball carriers for lowering their heads before contact. Bet you'd see even more calls on the offense.
 
14Red said:
I believe the rule was put into place to begin to send a message to change the WAY football is played. Remember the days when defenders lowered their head and shoulders and made themselves a missile to "dislodge" the ball from the receiver. They didn't make a play on the ball, their intent was to dislodge the ball, or harm the defenseless receiver.
Personally, I've seen a change in how defense is being played the last few seasons. You start taking away the penalty, make it weaker and you'll lose all the ground you've gained.
I think the rule should remain as is. Remember folks this is all about player safety, not being punitive to your defensive player.
Click to expand...

Methinks the rule would have been better, more effective, before replay.

adselder09 said:
But there are plenty of instances where a hit is unintentional but still helmet-to-helmet. The launching from DBs into defenseless WRs, sure that's targeting. Two guys meeting in the hole is not, that's football.
Click to expand...

no doubt

Replay - both in officiating and fans' TV viewing - and our attitude towards it takes away this sort of discretion from game officials. We are at the least common denomintor on this one. Too bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top