ND @ Texas Targeting or not?

[SE Minnestoa Re]

At the Minnesota/Oregon State game Thursday, two targeting calls were made that were not as bad as this one. Ejections were both upheld by replay. One was on a sliding quarterback who seemed to go down late. The other was on a roughing the passer call.

The Gophers had a total of 3 called. The first one was really bad and the ejection was easy.

Whether the calls are right or wrong, the practice of aiming high needs to cease. Aim at the waist and even if the offended player drops down, you still won't likely end up above the shoulders.

[JRutledge]

The only problem is I am not sure this was an "aim" as it was just a hit. If he went even lower.

Peace

[dieter]

I talked to a BIG official last night. Mr. Carollo was very adamant that this is targeting.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

At the Minnesota/Oregon State game Thursday, two targeting calls were made that were not as bad as this one. Ejections were both upheld by replay. One was on a sliding quarterback who seemed to go down late. The other was on a roughing the passer call.

The Gophers had a total of 3 called. The first one was really bad and the ejection was easy.

Whether the calls are right or wrong, the practice of aiming high needs to cease. Aim at the waist and even if the offended player drops down, you still won't likely end up above the shoulders.

Here are some of the plays. Not my videos but I did some looking.

Sliding Tackle Targeting



3rd Targeting call in this game.


Peace

[ajmc]

There has NEVER been two football plays that have been exactly identical, over the long history of football at multiple levels. Somewhat like snowflakes. It's unlikely that there has never been exactly identical observations of any football play, over the same period.(positioning differences, obstacles, distance variations, individual focus, etc.)

What matters (replay aside) is that the covering official knows full well what the requirements of the rule are, was in the optimum position to observe the action thoroughly, leading up to and during the contact and ruled on what he understood and observed.

There are factors film, considering available varying speed and focus, provides that human eyesight is incapable of, AND there are factors, available to the human eye, that film is often unable to discern.

Whether this contact was, or wasn't targeting has long been decided and will NOT change. What can be learned from reviewing and discussing it, is enhancing our individual understanding of the letter and intent of the rule and underscoring the importance of positioning so as to be best prepared to observe the action, so the judgment on the next, similar play might be as accurate as "humanly" possible.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

There has NEVER been two football plays that have been exactly identical, over the long history of football at multiple levels. Somewhat like snowflakes.

And over more than a century, I don't think the rules makers have made a bit of progress by trying to specify unnecessary roughness by further description.

[Texas Aggie]

That is why I am conflicted because other than the hardness of the hit, I am not sure what the defender is to do.

The defender is to not hit the player in the head or neck area and not to hit him with the crown of the helmet. He clearly did the former. He launched. To say this wasn't targeting is ridiculous.

Besides, hardness of this hit IS a consideration: read FORCEABLE in the rule. Hard isn't defined in the physical science world, thus, the word forceable was chosen. Effectively for our purposes, they mean the same thing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The defender is to not hit the player in the head or neck area and not to hit him with the crown of the helmet. He clearly did the former. He launched. To say this wasn't targeting is ridiculous.

Besides, hardness of this hit IS a consideration: read FORCEABLE in the rule. Hard isn't defined in the physical science world, thus, the word forceable was chosen. Effectively for our purposes, they mean the same thing.

I do not see a launch. I see a hard hit, but not a launch. And launching is not in itself a foul.

Peace