|
8 years 9 months
# | GIFTORY: Frame-by-Frame Highlight Reel of Virginia Tech's Plundering of East Carolina 
Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments
|
8 years 9 months
# | GIFTORY: Frame-by-Frame Highlight Reel of Virginia Tech's Plundering of East Carolina At least he didn't embed.
(Either the site or the boxing glove.)
The point I'm trying to make is that of all the proposed changes I've read in this thread, I've yet to see one that would actually result in any significant change to the practical application of the rule. The process on the field would be indistinguishable from what we currently have. I'm just seeing a bunch of semantic arguments.
28% of targeting calls got overturned. That's specifically why the penalty goes to instant review. Thankfully, the NCAA made the right decision and allowed the entire penalty to be overturned, not just the ejection. The only other change I can think of to placate the critics of the existing rule would be to remove allowing the call to stand, but what portion of the 72% of targeting calls that weren't overturned were allowed to stand rather than being confirmed? Is this a legitimate issue, or just another semantic argument? (Not rhetorical; I honestly don't know the breakdown.)
And if you remove allowing the call to stand, what do you do where the video is inconclusive? Make the default action to be overturning the penalty? For a rule that was implemented through a growing concern for player brain safety, that seems counterproductive to me. And in practice, bad targeting calls are just going to get overturned anyway, like happened with Strohman and with more than 1 out of 4 targeting calls anyway.
If we implement any or all of the changes suggested here, I imagine we'll be in exactly the same place we are now as a fanbase: disagreeing with just about every targeting call against us, and wanting targeting calls against our opponents on anything close.
Here's the point of contact, or at least as close to it as I can get on that gif:
Blurriness aside, it looks like initial contact to the shoulder/clavicle, subsequent helmet to helmet contact. Hard to determine the defender's body posture, but he looks like he's turning his shoulder into LT.
This isn't targeting. It's almost precisely as high as the defender can go and still be a legal hit, but it's still a legal hit.
You can leave your feet, as long as contact isn't initiated at the head or neck. We do this ourselves all the time. Seriously, watch just about any tackle Mook makes. Our defense hits like a truck, legally, below the neck area of the ball carrier.
This was a clean hit to the shoulder, with some incidental helmet to helmet contact.
Nope. Never agreed with the umbrage TKP took over this hit. Of all the cheap shots LT took from opposing defenses, this wasn't one of them. That's a clean football hit. I would have been furious if this hit was ever called targeting on a VT defender.
Reread the rule from that site:
No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.
Targeting doesn't protect a player's shoulder, only their head and neck. They hit on LT is clearly to his shoulder.
The late hit comment wasn't an equivalency to targeting, it was me saying not only was it not targeting, it was a completely clean hit.
You read me wrong. I'm saying what's this 13.1/26.2 hour tailgate bullshit? We got nearly 300 hours of tailgating ahead of us.
Uh, guys? It's 295 hours to kickoff.
That's not targeting. Probably not even a late hit.
Helmet technology has gotten so good over the last few years that they provide reasonable protection against most head impacts. The one area where they don't is a collision with another helmet.
But hey, comparing safety measures to flag football? Haven't seen a straw man that good since the last time I watched Wizard of Oz.
And I think what's getting missed is out of all penalties called, targeting is the one where you actually do get something akin to due process.
Are we carrying the presumption of indisputable video evidence from reviewed plays into targeting review? That's the standard for overturning a call made by the officials, i.e., a fumble, touchdown, catch, etc.
The review for targeting is not overturning a call, it's challenging a penalty (without charging the defense a timeout to do it.) Like I said above, targeting is one of the few penalties that can even be reviewed, and it's specifically for the benefit of the player who got flagged.
And honestly, with the way targeting now reads, throwing a flag for targeting basically is requesting a review. There is no other penalty that triggers an automatic review, and most penalties can't even be challenged for review. The automatic review process on targeting is an acknowledgement that this is a huge call, and it's important to get it right.
The penalty is only enforced if upheld, especially now that the 15 yards can be wiped out by review.
This is honestly pretty much what we've gone to. To be honest, the best change they could have made to targeting was the one they made: allowing the 15 yards to be wiped out if the call gets overturned. Now, throwing a flag for targeting is basically the ref telling the booth, "Take a look at this." I get the argument that it's basically guilty until proven innocent, but those replay officials know what's on the line, and as soon as targeting is called, the ball is in their court. While they still will use the confirmed/overturned language as with all other penalties, targeting is basically going to be the one call where the replay official is going to make the call based on what he or she sees.
The first half of your comment is exactly the way it's done now. Basically verbatim.
The only problem I can think of with reversing the call to affect the offense would be with a QB slide. If a defender is committed to a tackle simultaneously with the QB giving himself up, that's no fault contact. Otherwise, if the ball carrier leads with the crown of his helmet, sure, call it.
If video review isn't available or is inconclusive, the penalty is enforced only if the targeted player is hurt.
No no no no no no no no no. Never ever ever base a flag off of injury, unless you want to introduce NBA/soccer levels of flopping into football. I shudder to think what the game would look like if this precident were set.
I get that. But that's specifically the symbolic difference I mentioned in my last comment. It would look exactly like the current system. Basically it goes from being automatic ejection unless the call is overturned to being automatic ejection if the call is upheld. In practice, there would be no discernible difference. If we keep ejection for targeting, what we have now is what the system is going to look like, even if we make changes to the wording regarding at what point ejection is triggered.
In effect, that's what they already do. That why there's automatic review on all targeting calls, specifically because ejection is at stake. I get the symbolic difference in what you're saying, but in practice, the way you propose doing it is going to look exactly like the current method.
The only way to really change targeting would be to eliminate the ejection protocol. I'm not down with that. There's simply too much concussion and brain injury research that shows something has to be done about hits to the head in football. Targeting isn't a magic solution to that problem, but it's better than the alternative.
So what's the proposed solution?
With all the streaming ESPN is doing, are there really that many games that don't have camera crews assigned? Seriously, go down the list on WatchESPN on a random Saturday. There are some pretty obscure games that get streamed. I don't think a lack of camera crews is nearly the obstacle today as it was when the NCAA rolled out targeting just a few years ago.
and the camera crew didn't know where the ball was
Typically, every skill position player has a camera on them every play. You can find the camera angle that followed Tyrie Cleveland the whole time on the last play of Tennessee/Florida. It's not like there's only one camera following the ball. This is true now more than ever, because the TV crews know the refs are depending on multiple angles of every play for review. So the risk of not having an angle to establish point of contact on a tackle is slim.
There was a targeting call a couple years ago, where a defender went at hip level to tackle the quarterback (I wanna say it was Ole Miss's QB) and the QB started to slide after the defender had started to go for the tackle. It was clearly a helmet to helmet hit, with the defender initiating contact with the crown of his helmet, but the targeting flag got picked up for exactly the reason you state. Of course, this was back when the 15 yards still stood regardless, but maybe an incidental/intentional distinction could be implemented.
Wouldn't that be protected by existing rules against illegal/blindside blocks?
