Changes to Targeting Rule May Be Coming

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 25, 2018
784
255
63
47
Boulder, CO
#1
https://sports.yahoo.com/report-col...push-big-change-targeting-rule-010406623.html

I like where they're going with this. Hope it passes.

Summarizing, it would create a Targeting 1 & Targeting 2 penalty. Kind of like flagrant fouls in BB. Targeting 1 would just be a 15 yard penalty & no ejection, Targeting 2 would warrant an ejection.

Like most new rules, it takes awhile to see the nuances of what we've got now that the Targeting rule has been in place a few years. Imo, the defenders are getting penalized too frequently for the offensive player lowering his head & changing the point of impact. I'd like to see them looking more at how the offensive player had a hand in what gets called as targeting.
 
Last edited:
Nov 27, 2007
2,345
1,092
1,743
33
Tulsa
#3
I could see that as a benifit so long that all targeting calls are reviewable. Also, both infractions need to be clearly defined so everyone knows what exactly targeting is.
 
Nov 5, 2010
66
32
568
#4
I could see that as a benifit so long that all targeting calls are reviewable. Also, both infractions need to be clearly defined so everyone knows what exactly targeting is.
All Targeting calls are already reviewed...I think it will be anything hit to the head or neck area will probably be a 1 and then hitting with the crown of the helmet be a 2. That is how I would see it playing out with much more verbiage put in of course.
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,205
949
1,743
#5
It's going to be tough to judge intent(for some refs), but I think it's a good thing to at least give the player a chance to stay in the game. I hate it when a defensive player has already committed to making a tackle and the offensive player ducks his head or slides and the defender ends up hitting him in the helmet. Now the guy is out of the game for trying to do the right thing and make a safe tackle. Hopefully this will clear some of that up.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,647
6,533
1,743
Yukon, OK
#7
hate it when a defensive player has already committed to making a tackle and the offensive player ducks his head or slides and the defender ends up hitting him in the helmet. Now the guy is out of the game for trying to do the right thing and make a safe tackle.
This. A defender could be going straight for the chest and get flagged for targeting because the offensive player ducked down at the last second. The defender has no chance to react to that.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
18,718
8,474
1,743
Earth
#9
Are they going to let people only be thrown out of one half or is it still going to be a whole game...could this impact our player who was thrown out 2nd half of the bowl and as it stands now has to sit out the fist half of the Oregon State game?
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
17,754
13,453
1,743
#10
Doing a little house cleaning the other day i put on the 2001 Bedlam game just for background entertainment. If they had the targeting call back then we would have been down to our 3rd team D by the end.
 
Feb 15, 2017
275
252
113
64
Texas
#11
The current whole "defenseless player" part is crap. So it is ok for us to have concussions if the player is expecting to get his clock cleaned vs if he is defenseless ?

And agreed with CJ. Many times (and i think is Siverand's case), initial contact may be with chest/shoulder area but as the impacted player moves/slides down, then there is incidental contact between helmets - that's what needs to go to Target 1.
 
Feb 15, 2017
275
252
113
64
Texas
#12
Are they going to let people only be thrown out of one half or is it still going to be a whole game...could this impact our player who was thrown out 2nd half of the bowl and as it stands now has to sit out the fist half of the Oregon State game?
nothing will be implemented until the 2020 season, so Siverand sits first half vs Beavers
 
Apr 14, 2008
963
587
1,643
Texas
#15
How is this much different than what we have now? Now they call targeting and the guy is ejected (same as Targeting 2) upon further review in which case it could be reduced to 15yd penalty (Targeting 1).

It's almost like they merely changed from a "Guilty till Innocent" model to "Innocent till Guilty" one.
 
Jul 25, 2018
784
255
63
47
Boulder, CO
#16
How is this much different than what we have now? Now they call targeting and the guy is ejected (same as Targeting 2) upon further review in which case it could be reduced to 15yd penalty (Targeting 1).

It's almost like they merely changed from a "Guilty till Innocent" model to "Innocent till Guilty" one.
Pretty good summation, imo.

I think your last point it exactly why this is a good change. Should've never been done the other way around in the first place.

The reviews became like alot of the replays where they just weren't "conclusive" enough to override the initial call, so the kid was just tossed.
 
Last edited:
Apr 20, 2013
258
126
593
33
Bakersfield, CA
#17
Are they going to let people only be thrown out of one half or is it still going to be a whole game...could this impact our player who was thrown out 2nd half of the bowl and as it stands now has to sit out the fist half of the Oregon State game?
Does Rodarius really have to sit out against Oregon State next year? I'm surprised they would loop the punishment to the next season like that.
 
Apr 20, 2013
258
126
593
33
Bakersfield, CA
#18
Are they going to let people only be thrown out of one half or is it still going to be a whole game...could this impact our player who was thrown out 2nd half of the bowl and as it stands now has to sit out the fist half of the Oregon State game?
Actually, wasn't it Siverand who targeted in the second half? I think he's done playing all together.
 
Dec 17, 2011
551
260
613
25
#19
I think there were calls that weren't made that were technically targeting for the soul purpose of the ejection. Which I think was so BS for a full game ejection for a college player