Targeting

atlanta jacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
6,874
Rule needs to be looked at and refined. That Clemson targeting by the linebacker to me is just football. Perhaps players should not be disqualified , they could make the rule you are out of the game for the next 8 minutes. After all this is football.
 

MercerJacket

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
8
Rule needs to be looked at and refined. That Clemson targeting by the linebacker to me is just football. Perhaps players should not be disqualified , they could make the rule you are out of the game for the next 8 minutes. After all this is football.
It's a rule that's been in place since 1976, "spearing". They have only recently started enforcing it to the extent a player is ejected. I think it should remain a 15 yard penalty and no ejection if the forceable contact is not to the head or neck area of the opposing player. "In gridiron football, spearing is a tackling technique in which a player makes initial contact with the crown of their helmet by using their body as a spear (head out, arms by their side). An offensive player or a defensive player can be penalized for spear tackling. Spearing from an offensive player will result in a 15-yard penalty, whereas spearing from a defensive player will result in an automatic first-down for the offense."
 

Walton

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
394
He could have legally made helmet to helmet contact if he had left his face up. It was only a penalty because he lowered his helmet and made contact with the player's body.

He didn't have to lower his head.

I think that is the way he tackles and he needs to stop. On another play he did the same but hit the player with his shoulder and his helmet slide beside the player. Also, I don't think he had to blow up the WR to make the play. He was already being tackled so the LB only needed to finish him off. You have to be smarter than that.
 

interchange

Flats Noob
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
764
Spearing is the kind of targeting I'm least conflicted about calling. A player controls dipping their head and launching the crown of their helmet toward someone.

Personally I would like to see a study if ejections are effective at changing tackling technique/reducing targeting. If they aren't, don't eject for it. I'd be ok if it were 2 strikes you're out to prevent a reckless player / intention to cause injury with it, but I really doubt very many folks thinks it's in the team's interest to rack up multiple 15 yard penalties.
 

GoGATech

Big Dummy
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
8,095
He could have legally made helmet to helmet contact if he had left his face up. It was only a penalty because he lowered his helmet and made contact with the player's body.

He didn't have to lower his head.

I think that is the way he tackles and he needs to stop. On another play he did the same but hit the player with his shoulder and his helmet slide beside the player. Also, I don't think he had to blow up the WR to make the play. He was already being tackled so the LB only needed to finish him off. You have to be smarter than that.
This is another type foul that I think needs to be reviewed in real-time, just like they do with the process of completing a catch to determine whether or not someone had possession of the ball or not. It is so late when he lowers his head it's more of a reaction than anything. His head goes down at the absolute last millisecond, and I disagree with you in the fact that I believe if his head was up and he made contact with the helmet of the receiver, he still would've gotten called for targeting. I think he saw the trajectory he was on and instinctively tried to not hit the receiver in the helmet, thus lowering his head. Also, if lowering the head like that is flagged for a penalty, then why not this?

targeting.png
 

smokey_wasp

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,393
The ejection part was put in to act as a significant enough deterrent to this style of tackling. I think the ejection aspect should be discretionary rather than mandatory, though. You hate to see a kid lose out on playing in a huge game for a non-egregious hit.
 

LambdaChiGT

Dodd-Like
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
3,085
I'm ok with the call, but I do think they need to reevaluate the ejection part of the penalty. Both the one last night and the one in the OSU game were calls that totally changed the game because the players were ejected. I think ejections should be handed out a little more carefully when there is clear intent to injure someone.
 

ElCidBUZZingFAN

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
17,083
I'm ok with the call, but I do think they need to reevaluate the ejection part of the penalty. Both the one last night and the one in the OSU game were calls that totally changed the game because the players were ejected. I think ejections should be handed out a little more carefully when there is clear intent to injure someone.
Eh, then you have to codify what intent looks like and that opens up a whole can of worms when kids are tossed. Either make the toss automatic or take that part out.
 

Deke

Everybody relax, I'm here.
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
6,761
You mean UNC?
Play at around 31:36

I don't think I ever went back and watched it since seeing it from the stands, but in light of the conversation figured I'd dig it up. I get that the ejection call was by the rules, but it makes me also support the rules changing. It was a great form tackle and he never lowered his helmet or lead with the crown. Still the facemask to facemask was enough to get him booted from the rest of them game. I'm always weary about giving the refs more latitude to interpret things, but I wish they could somehow determine the difference between a clearly dirty hit and one where their helmets just happened to touch (and kept the ejection +15 yards for the former and just a 15 yard penalty for the latter).
 

JJacket

1st to pass for 2500 and rush for 1000
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
49,539
The call is to protect both players
 

interchange

Flats Noob
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
764
This is another type foul that I think needs to be reviewed in real-time, just like they do with the process of completing a catch to determine whether or not someone had possession of the ball or not. It is so late when he lowers his head it's more of a reaction than anything. His head goes down at the absolute last millisecond, and I disagree with you in the fact that I believe if his head was up and he made contact with the helmet of the receiver, he still would've gotten called for targeting. I think he saw the trajectory he was on and instinctively tried to not hit the receiver in the helmet, thus lowering his head. Also, if lowering the head like that is flagged for a penalty, then why not this?

targeting.png
You have to take aim and initiate forcible contact. It's not simply making contact with crown of helmet or helmet to helmet.
 
Top