Targeting rule change proposal

[SC Official]

I have a better idea than your solution in search of a problem.

Let’s stop calling for rule changes to appease the ill-informed mob every time there is a correctly officiated, albeit impactful, play that occurs.

You can change rules til the cows come home and people will still want their pound of flesh and find things to complain about.

The targeting rule was designed to get rid of hits exactly like the one that occurred last night and is working as intended according to all persons who actually matter.

[HLin NC]

Originally Posted by sc official

i have a better idea than your solution in search of a problem.

Let’s stop calling for rule changes to appease the ill-informed mob every time there is a correctly officiated, albeit impactful, play that occurs.

+1

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am a life long Buckeye. That said, what upsets me is that why is the replay official initiating a review when the Game Officials have made a Ruling on the Field and have not asked for a review?

MTD, Sr.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am a life long Buckeye. That said, what upsets me is that why is the replay official initiating a review when the Game Officials have made a Ruling on the Field and have not asked for a review?

MTD, Sr.

Uh, that’s how replay works in college football.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am a life long Buckeye. That said, what upsets me is that why is the replay official initiating a review when the Game Officials have made a Ruling on the Field and have not asked for a review?

MTD, Sr.

Maybe you should Google “effects of CTE”.

The targeting rule is intended to force players to lower their “strike zones” to areas below the head of their opponent. It’s an effort to lessen potential concussions for both players involved.

The replay officials have the authority (and responsibility) to enforce the targeting rule even if it isn’t initially seen or called on the field. The play in the OK-LSU game is a prime example.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Uh, that’s how replay works in college football.

Originally Posted by CT1

Maybe you should Google “effects of CTE”.

The targeting rule is intended to force players to lower their “strike zones” to areas below the head of their opponent. It’s an effort to lessen potential concussions for both players involved.

The replay officials have the authority (and responsibility) to enforce the targeting rule even if it isn’t initially seen or called on the field. The play in the OK-LSU game is a prime example.

I don't have a problem with being CTE pro-active but there was a Game Official right on top of the play.

What bothered Buckeye fans infinity more was the overturning of the fumble recovery and TD.

MTD, Sr.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What bothered Buckeye fans infinity more was the overturning of the fumble recovery and TD.

What should bother your fans is having to settle for FGs three times, and bailing out the opponent by committing two drive-extending penalties that led to TDs.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by CT1

What should bother your fans is having to settle for FGs three times, and bailing out the opponent by committing two drive-extending penalties that led to TDs.

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Missing opportunities, settling for FGs, untimely penalties, and having a TD taken off the board by a completely unwarranted review are all parts of the story.

If called incomplete on the field, absolutely no beef with 'call stands', but there's no way that should have been reversed - it was reofficiating the play in a very hypertechnical way, not the role of replay. And before that just gets dismissed out of hand as sour grapes by a fan, it's almost unprecedented how many highly respected officiating leaders have said that. Terry McCauley, Bill Carollo, and Rogers Reddings himself have all said that the reversal was incorrect. Does that mean OSU wins? Of course not. But to deny the impact of a high-momentum, lead-changing defensive TD is equally silly.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by CT1

What should bother your fans is having to settle for FGs three times, and bailing out the opponent by committing two drive-extending penalties that led to TDs.

I do not disagree with you. But....

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I have a better idea than your solution in search of a problem.

Let’s stop calling for rule changes to appease the ill-informed mob every time there is a correctly officiated, albeit impactful, play that occurs.

You can change rules til the cows come home and people will still want their pound of flesh and find things to complain about.

The targeting rule was designed to get rid of hits exactly like the one that occurred last night and is working as intended according to all persons who actually matter.

If I was a certain guy on the other site, I would post a random picture to show my total agreement with all of this statement.

Peace

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I have a better idea than your solution in search of a problem.

Let’s stop calling for rule changes to appease the ill-informed mob every time there is a correctly officiated, albeit impactful, play that occurs.

You can change rules til the cows come home and people will still want their pound of flesh and find things to complain about.

The targeting rule was designed to get rid of hits exactly like the one that occurred last night and is working as intended according to all persons who actually matter.

I don't agree that allowing some discretion to distinguish non-flagrant fouls when there's no aggravating factor is appeasing any mob. Both the NFL and HS allow that, I don't agree with the one-size, zero tolerance approach in NCAA.

Saturday showed both extremes. The call in OK-LSU was blatant, flagrant, and a perfect example of what should result in ejection. On the same day, the OSU call was the other end of the spectrum - a player attempting to wrap, with a low strike zone until the QB lowered his level, that yes, at the moment of tackle used his crown. To treat both of these with the same extreme penalty is ludicrous IMO. If there's even a single aggravating factor like launch, thrust, etc. then replay should enforce an ejection, but that's too big of a penalty for non-flagrant, technical violations. Penalty, sure, 2 in a game, ejection, but a 2 level structure like HS is a very reasonable argument (and proposed multiple times by the B1G and ACC over the years, among others) and not 'appeasing any mob'.