Targeting calls - 9/24/2016

[JRutledge]

Penn State @ Michigan


I am trying to understand this rule and the more I see this the more confused I get honestly.

Peace

[youngump]

Can you get Auburn LSU around the 11 minute mark in the 3rd quarter?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by youngump

Can you get Auburn LSU around the 11 minute mark in the 3rd quarter?

Here it is.



Peace

[scrounge]

If you could add yet another one, the non call in UCLA-Stanford

[JRutledge]

I left in the commentary on purpose.



Peace

[Welpe]

In my opinion, the Stanford - UCLA play was targeting.

I think PSU - UM was due to the shoulder. It's slight but it looks like he puts something extra in at the end.

Between Stanford - UCLA & PSU - UM, the Stanford - UCLA play was a much more dangerous hit.

[Welpe]

I agree that nitpicking by a couple of inches whether that was actually the "crown" or not is ridiculous. A couple of inches does not change the force of that hit to the point that it's no longer dangerous.

That said, I still have targeting with the crown. It's pretty clear to me he hits him with the top of the head.

[Texas Aggie]

I think we're headed toward a post-game targeting review of ALL targeting calls and potential targeting no-calls. Right now, they can reverse a suspension for the following game, but there isn't anything (that I am aware of -- correct me if I'm wrong) that allows the conference or whoever to implement a penalty for a non-called targeting play.

The current system is not getting these hits out of the game. It seems like there are more this year than the last couple of years.

It also doesn't help to have coaches who tell their players to go out and light up the opponent and they'll try to intimidate the officials into not calling things. I know for a fact this happens, but I don't know how widespread it is. The rules are but a obstacle for some coaches.

[Reffing Rev.]

The Sandford - UCLA call i do not see crown of the helmet, not even by the broadest definition. Since the player was by definition a runner who was trying to advance, he cannot be a "defenseless" player. Neither of the 2 types of TGT exist on this play.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

The Sandford - UCLA call i do not see crown of the helmet, not even by the broadest definition. Since the player was by definition a runner who was trying to advance, he cannot be a "defenseless" player. Neither of the 2 types of TGT exist on this play.

I thought I had a reasonable feel for these types of hits. Now I'm more confused than ever.

I don't see how review upheld the PSU - Michigan call when the B player was going for the ball.

I don't see how there was no TGT in the Stanford - UCLA play when the B player had a clear opportunity to make a legal hit, but chose to go high.

[OKREF]

Well, I would have been 0 for 3 with these in my games. Michigan game no targeting. It looks like targeting in the other 2 to me.