It's bound to be addressed in the off-season - here's my take for a change to "Targeting"
I understand the differences, but "targeting","leading with the helmet", "launching"
are all buzzwords that leave too much up to interpretation by the officials.
Without replay- officials on the field can't dissect these hits accurately at full speed.
How about this for a change to the rule:
--- If a defender initiates contact with an offensive player and the defender's
helmet's initial contact is with the offensive player's helmet without his helmet contacting
any other part of the offensive player, then he is penalized and ejected---
(same ejection rules apply)---
In other words, any clear helmet-to-helmet contact initiated by the defender
without the defender's helmet hitting any other parts of the offensive player first
results in an personal foul and ejection.
Conversely, if a defender initiates a hit and has incidental helmet-to-helmet contact
after the initial contact (hits shoulder pads first) than its a clean play.
Thoughts?
Comments
whenever i hear the announcers discussing potential targeting:
How neat is that?
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY TURKEY LEGS!
best response ever. thanks for the laugh.
Targeting is not solely helmet to helmet. It also is in play if the defender initiates any contact above the shoulders with any part of his body when leaving the ground (Eg. Receiver coming across the middle gets a shoulder to the head by the safety who leaves his feet to make the contact)
maybe 'targeting' should not matter. If there is a rule making defenders avoid initial helmet to helmet contact altogether- it would not matter if its intentional, launching, or whatever.
The crux of the rule was brought in to avoid hits to the head especially on defenseless players, this would go back to allowing head hunters as long as they use their shoulder pads to deliver the blow to the head which currently they are not supposed to be able to do.
Do I side with strengthening the punishment and making the rule as black and white as possible, absolutely. I would be interested to know how many players across the NCAA were ejected this year to see how often the new rules were even utilized.
The idea would be to clarify/simplify helmet to helmet hits. Other targeting scenarios (shoulder) would still be in place. An official wouldn't have to attempt to determine intent, If there's a helmet to helmet hit initiated by the defender without other contact he's penalized and ejected.
I like that they review the ejection. I would like to see the replay official be able to rescind the 15 yard penalty. I forget the game but a player had a great clean hit and got flagged for targeting. The ejection was rescinded but he still got 15 yards for a beautiful clean hit.
You know when they go Back to playing Tackle Football , we won't have this problem. Tackle and Not lead with shoulders or helmets...Tackling is a lost art in the Game of Football. Has been for about 15 years or more...
I think this would be a step towards that. If a defender is consciously avoiding helmet contact- he will be forced to tackle a player (shoulder to torso, wrapping arms, etc...)
Wrapping up is an attempt to tackle. Not wrapping is an attempt to knock down through sheer force.
If he had been trying to interfere with the pass, he'd have had his arms up to move to block the ball or hit the QBs arms in the act of performing the pass or follow through.
He did not do this and contact was a full step after the ball was released. The hit came too late to impact the pass in any way. It was a target to punish the defenseless player.
how do you post video? I'll show you a recent example of targeting
*googles "Zumwalt Sun Bowl"*
But seriously, if you want to embed a YouTube video, just click below the video where it says "share" and then click beside where it says "share this video" on "embed" and then copy&paste that HTML code that is in the text box. Hope this makes sense and/or helps!
I had posted this on another thread but for those that didn't see it there:
Pause at the 1:22/1:23 mark to show that it was the definition of targeting. At 1:23, both feet are clearly off the ground as he leads with his helmet.
I don't google.
Tried to use instagram..... quickly tried to use vine.... f****.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/QBHIT/QBHIT/VT+QB+Hit.mp4
It downloads slow as f****... about 12 Mb. Best video I've seen on the hit. Feel bad posting this thing but IMHO this was a really bad hit and CBS after they talked about what a great hit it was didn't seem to be showing the right angle. I think they only showed this angle once.
CBS guys, Zummwalt, and Mora owe LT an apology IMHO.
And the refs.
That amazon s3. It'll get after ya!
This video makes me want to puke. At the game, the video board was 15 years outdated, so the small details didn't show. There was nothing clean about that hit, and I don't know what to say to anyone who thinks it was clean. Obviously it was intentional following the embarrassment Logan's Run put on UKLA.
This is the second time in 2 years I am blaming a bowl loss on a controversial call. I can't say that Tech would have won if Coale's catch counted or if Zumwalt would have been ejected. Both of those blown calls were momentum changers. If Coale's catch remained a td, we can all agree that Tech could have held on. If Zumwalt would have been ejected, Tech could have continued the momentum sparked by Logan's Run.
The team has been in hangover mode for the past two years since the Sugar Bowl. I hope each player has that chip on his shoulder to turn it around and take it out on OSU.
If Leal is the starter next year, I'm at least glad he now has some game footage to study. He ain't Grant Nole. He showed ability to lead. Starting 8-11 and throwing a perfect touchdown pass (drop) is something to build on for 2014.
No comparison to coales catch but I hear ya. The wprstpart is how they rewarded the player. It was at the very least a questionable hit -he was evenpenalized for it and they reward him- poor judgement all around.
It was handled poorly all around. Disgusting. It would be an ejection with what I proposed. More importantly it wouldnt be up to interpretation. Helmet hits o players helmet b4 contacting other parts of the o player. Ejection -Case closed. Not up for debate.
I'm actually kind of surprised that Leal got over 100 yard passing after seeing the 6'6" 250lbs starter go down with a concussion after a dirty hit that wasn't even called targeting. He must've guessed that they would be coming after him hard. That's just what you do whenever the backup qb comes in. The way Logan went out probably made them want to blitz even more.
AMEN.
http://www.roanoke.com/sports/colleges/va_tech/article_30c9efd0-740f-11e...
That guy gets it.