Targeting call BS

Buzz'n

Buzz'n

Flats Noob
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
627
Does the American Conference have different stipulations for targeting than the power 5 conferences or are they just a bunch of hoohas! Weak calls IMHO.
 
Have seen some bad targeting ejections in p5 games. It shouldn't be an automatic ejection.
 
andrew said:
Have seen some bad targeting ejections in p5 games. It shouldn't be an automatic ejection.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is a pet peeve of mine. For a call that's so subjective and variable, and doesn't even require any bad intent (unlike a bad sportsmanship penalty or a personal foul penalty), there's no way ejection should be automatic. Maybe have two types of targeting penalty or something.
 
18in32 said:
Yeah, this is a pet peeve of mine. For a call that's so subjective and variable, and doesn't even require any bad intent (unlike a bad sportsmanship penalty or a personal foul penalty), there's no way ejection should be automatic. Maybe have two types of targeting penalty or something.
Click to expand...

I agree. Perhaps the decision on this comes from not wanting to put it in the hands of the officials to be objective as to intent -holding is holding, offsides is offsides, targeting is targeting (as defined).

Neither of our targeting calls were of an action of malicious intent, just football players making a tackle/hit, yet in Curry’s case he certainly lead with the crown of his helmet. Carpenter’s ejection was a bad call IMO.

In the games I have watched thus far this season, there have been too many ejections based upon this -you’d think there were a bunch of Jack Tatum’s running around headhunting or something.
 
18in32 said:
Yeah, this is a pet peeve of mine. For a call that's so subjective and variable, and doesn't even require any bad intent (unlike a bad sportsmanship penalty or a personal foul penalty), there's no way ejection should be automatic. Maybe have two types of targeting penalty or something.
Click to expand...
It's already a 15 yard penalty. I think it should take two of those types of penalties in a game before a player is disqualified. This subjective crap is BS because I've seen some blatantly bad calls of targeting over the past few years and only one time have I ever seen it overturned. It seems the review refs don't want to be the ones to make their on-the-field buddies look bad or don't want to come across as being 'against player safety'.
 
It’s ööööing garbage and the refs were garbage. ACC is the only conference that goes out of its way to help its opponent in road out of conference games.
 
gtg970g said:
They were AAC officials on the field, not sure about the review officials.
Click to expand...
Well then they should be suspended for rigging the game. It was horrible. I was going off of prior knowledge that road teams bring officials in OOC games.
 
The first one was unfortunate. There clearly was no intent, but by the letter of the law, I could at least make a logical case that it was correct.

The Curry call was one of the worst I've ever seen. It's right there with the Adam Gotsis ejection a few years ago.
 
GTCrew4b said:
Well then they should be suspended for rigging the game. It was horrible. I was going off of prior knowledge that road teams bring officials in OOC games.
Click to expand...
The worst call of the game wasn't even targeting. There was a 3rd down qb scramble in the 1st quarter which resulted in a 1st down where the runner clearly ran out of bounds before the first down marker. The ball was carried behind the runners body and body went out before the sticks. I couldn't believe we didn't challenge the call.
 
This rule only benefits the blue chip programs who are loaded with depth at every position. After our 2 starters were ejected, I was watching players out there that I had no idea who they were. Probably walk-ons.
 
A correction on the absurd 1st down call, it was actually a running plan by a RB with about 11:30 on the clock in the second quarter. You can see the play here at the 44:38 mark.

The runner clearly runs out of bounds short of the first down line.
 
gtg970g said:
A correction on the absurd 1st down call, it was actually a running plan by a RB with about 11:30 on the clock in the second quarter. You can see the play here at the 44:38 mark.

The runner clearly runs out of bounds short of the first down line.
Click to expand...

That game was literally just a shit show
 
gtg970g said:
A correction on the absurd 1st down call, it was actually a running plan by a RB with about 11:30 on the clock in the second quarter. You can see the play here at the 44:38 mark.

The runner clearly runs out of bounds short of the first down line.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it wasn't a first down, but for clarity's sake, the runner's position is irrelevant. You're always looking for where the ball was.

If the runner touches the sideline on his way out, the ball is spotted where the ball was the moment the runner goes out of bounds (ie, touched the sideline).
If the player strides across the sideline, the ball is spotted wherever the ball was when the ball crossed the sideline, even if that's before the player lands out of bounds. (It's different for pass plays, obvs.)

In this case he was holding the ball in his left arm, which is upfield. Since the runner ran over the sideline on his way out, you look for where the ball was when the ball crossed the sideline. Since the runner was south of the line to gain, the ball (a fortiori) didn't make the line to gain.

Here's an NCAA explanation, in typically incoherent bureaucratese, for anyone interested.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top