The NCAA needs two levels of targeting, Flagrant 1 and 2

The NCAA needs two levels of targeting, Flagrant 1 and 2

  • To throw a player out of the game for some of this crap is absurd. If the play isn't deemed to be intent to hurt another player, it should be a 15 yard penalty and you should get two. If deemed intent to harm, then flagrant 1 and ejection. The game shouldn't be changed becasue a QB ducks and gets hit in the head

  • Discussion
  • The NCAA needs to get rid of this ridiculous rule altogether.

    REALLY flagrant incidents can still get a player tossed - as they did before this dumb rule was enacted.

  • I like the option of a Flagrant 1 or 2.....What a novel idea! Needs to be introduced to the NCAA and member institutions for consideration. Every school has been hurt by straight up ejections for questionable severity hits, so I think most schools / conferences would be receptive to this idea.

  • Atlanta_Buckeye said... (original post)The NCAA needs to get rid of this ridiculous rule altogether.REALLY flagrant incidents can still get a player tossed - as they did before th...

    I like that idea. Give the refs the abililty and even have the decision reviewed if you want, but there is no way to make it objective. If it's that bad, it will stand out and they can take action. Otherwise, call a personal foul and leave it at that.

  • The problem with the targeting rule is that everyone interprets it differently. It's too hard to get it 100% correct when one official sees it differently than another. As long as players keep dropping their heads, it is something that will never go away.

  • djtidebuck said... (original post)To throw a player out of the game for some of this crap is absurd. If the play isn't deemed to be intent to hurt another player, it should b...

  • djtidebuck said... (original post)To throw a player out of the game for some of this crap is absurd. If the play isn't deemed to be intent to hurt another player, it should b...

    Love this idea!

  • djtidebuck said... (original post)To throw a player out of the game for some of this crap is absurd. If the play isn't deemed to be intent to hurt another player, it should b...

    Not sure what the answer to keep the players safe and at the same time make it fair and equitable for both the offense and defense, but it seems to me that many times a defensive player is already going for a tackle when the offensive player lowers his head and initiates the head to head contact. Maybe there should be some sort of penalty for the offensive player also and not just penalize one side of the ball. Knowing football coaches I wouldn't be surprised to see offensive coaches teaching quarterbacks and wideouts to lower their heads to draw a penalty and remove a opponents player. Perhaps if a offensive player lowers his head causing helmet to helmet contact both players should be penalized in some way. QB's would probably stop lowering their heads if they knew they could be ejected also or forced to sit out a quarter or half.

  • Any coach who teaches his players to lower their heads to get a PF should get canned. My daughter got a concussion in ;lacrosse, and she hasn't been back in school (homebound) for 2 years. You don't mess with the head.

  • oneflbuck said... (original post)Not sure what the answer to keep the players safe and at the same time make it fair and equitable for both the offense and defense, but it seems t...

    I highly doubt coaches are telling their offensive players to lower their head to increase the probability of a targeting penalty. That has future liability claims against the coach and university written all over it...

    First I hate this targeting penalty crap. I mentioned in another post when Wade made the tackle, that was a solid fundamental tackle back in my day (head/shoulders into the chest area, arms wrapped around the ball carrier and drive those hips until he is down). Joey Bosa v ND was a crap penalty, I could go on.

    Look, Clemson failed miserably in stopping Wade from getting to their QB. Wade sacked the QB for a loss. Momentum is stronger than ever in favor of the Bucks. Then a flag comes in, a review takes place, Wade gets thrown out of the game and that changes the tone of a very important game. Instead of Ohio State being rewarded (and Clemson reaping what they allowed) for a great defensive stance, Clemson is instead awarded not only a penalty but also not having to deal with Ward any longer since he is thrown out of a game. It's BS!

    Go BUCKS!!!

    OHIO STATE in '20!!!

  • I will also mention since this targeting penalty is here to stay, I like what dj is proposing above. Something to consider versus the harsh end result of throwing a player out of the game. Also add into consideration during the review process if the offensive player initiated any of the helmet contact due to their actions.

    Go BUCKS!!!
    OHIO STATE in '20!!!

  • Some pushback in this would be an interpretation of “intent”. It’s impossible to know the intent of every person on every possible targeting play. However, SOME targeting plays have been pretty blatant....that is.....easy to tell intent based on body language, amount of time getting ready to lay the hit, the launch, all of it. Those particular targeting plays....and they are a small minority.....should be penalized more harshly than the Shaun Wade hit. Once it gets into the gray area of trying to determine intent, based on what I have seen from current refs, it would be a complete cluster. We would trade one bad situation for another.

    It would certainly help to have someone that has played DE, LB, Corner or safety to weigh in on targeting calls ONLY. Those guys know how much time it takes (in milliseconds) to purposely or not purposely lay a targeting hit. I don’t....and most of these refs don’t. The true experts are the ones who have done it before, but no one seems to seek a solution from the very people that have the knowledge.

    Prior to the game with Clemson, I watched a game (can’t remember which bowl) where a guy was laying a tackle where the guy with the ball actually did duck down, the defender launched, there was helmet to helmet contact, and otherwise fit the definition of targeting. After review there was no targeting....because those refs realized that had the guy with the ball stayed upright, the tackler would have hit him in the mid section.....a legal tackle. In a more perfect game, all refs would have this type of judgment.