Coaches want targeting rules altered
 

Nick Saban of Alabama Crimson Tide wants change to targeting penalties - ESPN

The result (after review) was as if the original call had been DPI, which no one believes should be reviewable.

I'm surprised that no one on the crew talked the calling official off that call.

Growing pains like NCAA-Men's basketball had with the FF2 call that would be reviewed then the officials realized there wasn't even any contact.

That's where this is heading though. I anticipate one of two things happening with the targeting rule:

1) The targeting penalty is overturned enough (30% week 1 of very high) they decide to take the immediate ejection away and handle suspensions after the fact
2) The point Saban made was my exact thought when the new penalty was announced. Due to pressure the rules committee agrees and the 15-yard penalty gets reversed as well.

If option 1 happens we'll have players blowing up opponents again because they can live with a 15-yard penalty. If option 2 happens it's just a matter of time before other judgment calls like DPI, holding, IBW, encroachment are added to reviews. The post-game evaluation we get could happen in real time on the field.

I personally feel, as a fan, that the rules as they are in place now don't work properly. I want the officials to call the penalty for targeting, but I want to make sure this is called correctly. Therefore I think it should be penalized on the field, then reviewed immediately to determine if the penalty actually occurred and if the ejection and penalty should be upheld or not.

I think the most important thing is that the call is made correctly and that the game is impacted as little as possible. With the way the current rule is, the game is impacted significantly, and even if the call is wrong (ejection is overturned) it is impacted to a substantial degree.

My bigger concern is I have yet to hear how this impacts FCS, dII and DIII football where there is no replay to overturn the call. It's a good rule (that needs adjustment) for televised games, but for games that are not televised it could be a very bad rule.

The game of football has progressed fairly well, over the past 130+ years operating under, what some may conclude, is an antiquated, non-technical judgment system whereby game officials, who are expected to thoroughly understand the rules and their intent, were designated to observe the action and decide if, and to what extent, there were violations. Those impartial judgments, right or wrong, were it. There was some discussion, workable processes for instant appeal were developed, but the decisions, unless proven wrong, were upheld, and the game continued on.

That system is not perfect, but the imperfections are balanced and, for generations, applied equally to both participating teams. Fairly recently we've added "Instant Replay" which allows analysis of every action down to the gnat's eyelash level of accuracy.

Has all this technology, and the higher level of accuracy it provides improved the game? That answer, like "beauty", is largely as seen, "in the eye of the beholder". Perfection is always a laudable objective, but often the closer you get to it, perfection turns out NOT to all it's cracked up to be, or as necessary as imagined. Has IR reduced the number, or intensity of disagreements? On the contrary, all we seem to be accomplishing is finding new ways to see beyond a gnat's eyelash, to argue about that which is less and less relevant to the game being played.

The simple fact that IR has proven beneficial in specific, limited circumstances doesn't guarantee that it is suitable for every circumstance.

I understand IR can be the difference between life and death, whan related to point spreads, over and unders and even wins and losses, but isn't gambling on sports events STILL considered to be a negative idea?

I seem to recall, when the whole IR situation was just a concept, there was absolute predictions and guarantees that the use of IR would in NO WAY affect, intimidate or coerce the actual calls of officials on the field. That guarantee has evaporated and gone the way of, "The free lunch", "the check is in the mail" and "Obama Care is going to improve medical care and reduce cost".

There is absolutely no doubt, nuclear warheads on mouse traps will effectively get rid of mice, but......

Well the coaches created this rule, so that is on them as far as I am concerned. Also I do see some changes to the rule and replay will likely be used in the future to not eject or penalize anyone if there clearly is no foul.

Peace