The NCAA rules committee needs to look into changing the guidelines on "targeting" for the 2017-18 season. I had a discussion with a friend at work and we think they need something similar to what they have in basketball with the flagrant one vs flagrant 2 foul.
Some of these calls are bad and what are just normal football moves are subject to a potential targeting call.
They can make targeting one just a personal foul with no ejection and make targeting two have a automatic ejection for the remainder of the game and if in the second half sit the first half of the next game. Needs some corrections for sure and they need to look into pass interference while they are at it. Seems the "catchable" ball part is often disregarded.

Yep

(12-24-2016 10:09 AM)Franko Wrote:  The NCAA rules committee needs to look into changing the guidelines on "targeting" for the 2017-18 season. I had a discussion with a friend at work and we think they need something similar to what they have in basketball with the flagrant one vs flagrant 2 foul.
Some of these calls are bad and what are just normal football moves are subject to a potential targeting call.
They can make targeting one just a personal foul with no ejection and make targeting two have a automatic ejection for the remainder of the game and if in the second half sit the first half of the next game. Needs some corrections for sure and they need to look into pass interference while they are at it. Seems the "catchable" ball part is often disregarded.

I agree. One of the problems is that every officiating crew seems to interpret the targeting rule differently. Some of the calls are absurd, and it's clear evidence that the crews don't know what they are doing.

Against Navy, LA Tech had a player ejected after making a perfect hit on the Navy QB that was 100% correct fundamentally. Driving your face mask into the ball holders chest, wrapping your arms around the ball holder and driving that person into the ground is 100% fundamentally correct. The Tech players head was no where near the Navy QB's head. Just a TERRIBLE call. It literally appeared that the LA Tech player was being penalized simply because he hit the Navy QB too hard.

Sorry folks....but THAT'S football. The NCAA needs to completely scrap the current rules related to "targeting" and "ejections", and start all over. It's out of hand now.

He hit him with the crown of his helmet and drove the player to the ground with force. I've seen players break their neck tackling like that.

(12-24-2016 11:14 AM)southernbirds67 Wrote:  He hit him with the crown of his helmet and drove the player to the ground with force. I've seen players break their neck tackling like that.

No you haven't. You've never seen a player drive his face mask --or even the front of his helmet into a QB's chest and break his neck. That's an absurd comment.

(12-24-2016 11:14 AM)southernbirds67 Wrote:  He hit him with the crown of his helmet and drove the player to the ground with force. I've seen players break their neck tackling like that.

.
I'm 58 years old and have seen quite a bit of football and only recall a handful of times that a hit was severe enough to cause a spinal injury. Most of these were just a fluke 10,000 to one type chance. I don't recall anyone ever having their neck broke. I am not saying it can't happen but I know it is a very rare situation.

(12-24-2016 11:24 AM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 11:14 AM)southernbirds67 Wrote:  He hit him with the crown of his helmet and drove the player to the ground with force. I've seen players break their neck tackling like that.

No you haven't. You've never seen a player drive his face mask --or even the front of his helmet into a QB's chest and break his neck. That's an absurd comment.

It wasn't the face mask or the front of his helmet. It was the crown, the very top, of his helmet. That was the definition of targeting, and for the safety of everyone, should be a penalty.

It was called targeting after review. The initial call was roughing the passer, and was complete crap.

(12-24-2016 03:55 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  It was called targeting after review. The initial call was roughing the passer, and was complete crap.

It didn't appear to me to be a late hit. I also thought it to be a perfect form tackle as we were taught to do as early as Jr High football. I'm just very happy that it didn't cost us the game. I thought the Tech offense was as efficient as it possibly could be in this game. Higgins played as well as I have seen a QB play. Good decisions and he threw quite a few extremely good passes. I don't know what his stats were, but I'm sure they were very good.

(12-24-2016 04:25 PM)stodgdog Wrote:  I thought the Tech offense was as efficient as it possibly could be in this game. Higgins played as well as I have seen a QB play. Good decisions and he threw quite a few extremely good passes. I don't know what his stats were, but I'm sure they were very good.

29 of 40 for 409 yards passing, 4 TD passes and 1 rushing TD. The man was on fiyah!

http://www.espn.com/college-football/box...=400876047

(12-24-2016 04:25 PM)stodgdog Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 03:55 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  It was called targeting after review. The initial call was roughing the passer, and was complete crap.

It didn't appear to me to be a late hit. I also thought it to be a perfect form tackle as we were taught to do as early as Jr High football. I'm just very happy that it didn't cost us the game. I thought the Tech offense was as efficient as it possibly could be in this game. Higgins played as well as I have seen a QB play. Good decisions and he threw quite a few extremely good passes. I don't know what his stats were, but I'm sure they were very good.

It wasnt late, and that is why it was complete crap. He had just released the ball.

(12-24-2016 08:17 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 04:25 PM)stodgdog Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 03:55 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  It was called targeting after review. The initial call was roughing the passer, and was complete crap.

It didn't appear to me to be a late hit. I also thought it to be a perfect form tackle as we were taught to do as early as Jr High football. I'm just very happy that it didn't cost us the game. I thought the Tech offense was as efficient as it possibly could be in this game. Higgins played as well as I have seen a QB play. Good decisions and he threw quite a few extremely good passes. I don't know what his stats were, but I'm sure they were very good.

It wasnt late, and that is why it was complete crap. He had just released the ball.

It wasn't late, but it wasn't crap. He put the crown of his helmet into the qb's chest. We can argue about whether or not that should be targeting (I guess that was the original purpose of the thread), but that play was the definition of targeting, as it is.

FWIW, I actually do like the current rule. With all that we know, we have to put rules into effect that protect the players, even if that means changing from the way we learned to tackle when we played.

Unfortunately, it was the correct call. He intentionally led with the crown of his helmet and drove him into the ground. No one would have cared 5 years ago, but it is what it is.

(12-24-2016 01:57 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 11:24 AM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 11:14 AM)southernbirds67 Wrote:  He hit him with the crown of his helmet and drove the player to the ground with force. I've seen players break their neck tackling like that.

No you haven't. You've never seen a player drive his face mask --or even the front of his helmet into a QB's chest and break his neck. That's an absurd comment.

It wasn't the face mask or the front of his helmet. It was the crown, the very top, of his helmet. That was the definition of targeting, and for the safety of everyone, should be a penalty.

Then you can see. You need to go buy yourself some glasses.

(12-25-2016 12:18 AM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 01:57 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 11:24 AM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 11:14 AM)southernbirds67 Wrote:  He hit him with the crown of his helmet and drove the player to the ground with force. I've seen players break their neck tackling like that.

No you haven't. You've never seen a player drive his face mask --or even the front of his helmet into a QB's chest and break his neck. That's an absurd comment.

It wasn't the face mask or the front of his helmet. It was the crown, the very top, of his helmet. That was the definition of targeting, and for the safety of everyone, should be a penalty.

Then you can see. You need to go buy yourself some glasses.

Check your prescription HD. The hit was clearly illegal under the rules. Leading with the crown (which he did) is illegal no matter the situation.

I think the rule needs a bit less emphasis on contact and location of contact, substituted for emphasis on intent. It's hard for me to agree with a targeting call when the tackler wraps up and drives through the receiver-making a hard but fundamentally sound tackle.

The automatic ejection for the targeting foul is what needs to go, for sure. I'm a firm believer that if one or two players a game is ejected for targeting, the rule isn't appropriately written, and that there's no way to retrain players to avoid targeting since it is so nebulous a concept.

I had no problem with calling it targeting after review.
, since its within the rules. I find nothing worth ejecting a player over about it, though. The only ejection worthy hits are direct to the head.

(12-25-2016 12:38 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  I had no problem with calling it targeting after review.
, since its within the rules. I find nothing worth ejecting a player over about it, though. The only ejection worthy hits are direct to the head.

It still looked to me that he tackled him with his "head up" as my coaches would say. Apparently, I am wrong. Anyway, the 30 yards in penalties in the sequence of plays didn't cost us the game, which is good. Good clock management from our coaches and QB.

(12-25-2016 12:38 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  I had no problem with calling it targeting after review.
, since its within the rules. I find nothing worth ejecting a player over about it, though. The only ejection worthy hits are direct to the head.

Were one to watch the replay in slo mo, it shows that initial contact was made by the defensive player's top of the facemask and front of the helmet. Contact was then broken and as the QB bounced off the turf, the crown of the helmet contacted his chest. How that applies to the rule, I do not know. However, initial contact was not made with the crown of the helmet, and seems logical that initial contact would be the point in question.

(12-28-2016 04:49 PM)stodgdog Wrote:  

(12-25-2016 12:38 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  I had no problem with calling it targeting after review.
, since its within the rules. I find nothing worth ejecting a player over about it, though. The only ejection worthy hits are direct to the head.

Were one to watch the replay in slo mo, it shows that initial contact was made by the defensive player's top of the facemask and front of the helmet. Contact was then broken and as the QB bounced off the turf, the crown of the helmet contacted his chest. How that applies to the rule, I do not know. However, initial contact was not made with the crown of the helmet, and seems logical that initial contact would be the point in question.

You are absolutely correct. It was just another in a long line of bad calls.

I didn't like that call on Bradford. Not just because it was on us. But, like so many personal fouls called many times the tackler had already committed, lunged, shifted his weight forward such that no way he can change direction in mid-air! Now, I KNOW some will say Bradford coulda/shoulda lifted his head, and/or caused his head to go to the side and led with his shoulder into the Navy's QB midsection. Okay....fine. Valid arguments.

But, here's the worst part of it. Now he, and others who have also been tagged with targeting during the bowls, will have to sit out the 1st half of the season opener. That is BS! Graduating seniors, or those going out early into the NFL draft, would not be punished so. ALL penalties and the results of such penalties need to be equal. I mean, think about it, some senior in the 4th qtr of his absolute last game could NAIL someone and the NCAA could not touch him, other than the ejection for that game. Why should there be unequal treatment of players?

I suppose a senior, headed for an all-star game like the Senior Bowl, could be held out of the 1st half of that game.