Targeting Changes

Donate To GopherHole
2

#2Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
9,231
Reaction score
3,098
Points
113
The NCAA football rules committee proposed Saturday giving replay officials more leeway to overturn targeting penalties.

Two changes to targeting were proposed. One would allow replay officials to overturn a call of targeting if it cannot be confirmed. Also, players who receive a second targeting foul during the season would be suspended for the next game.

The committee also recommended that games reaching a fifth overtime be decided by alternating two-point conversion tries.

The proposals must be approved by the oversight committee in April.
 

#2Gopher said:
The NCAA football rules committee proposed Saturday giving replay officials more leeway to overturn targeting penalties.

Two changes to targeting were proposed. One would allow replay officials to overturn a call of targeting if it cannot be confirmed. Also, players who receive a second targeting foul during the season would be suspended for the next game.

The committee also recommended that games reaching a fifth overtime be decided by alternating two-point conversion tries.

The proposals must be approved by the oversight committee in April.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the replay official confirm/overturn targeting now? I'm confused.
 

Well before they could remove the targeting, but it was still a personal foul. Maybe now they can remove the penalty all together?
 

That seems...unsatisfactory. What happened to the two tiers - flagrant vs non-flagrant/incidental contact ie inability to bend the laws of physics proposal that everyone has been asking for.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
That seems...unsatisfactory. What happened to the two tiers - flagrant vs non-flagrant/incidental contact ie inability to bend the laws of physics proposal that everyone has been asking for.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of change I'm for.

I remember the recent Gopher DL that got blocked from behind into the QBs knees, consciously tried to avoid the hit, and then was flagged an additional 15 yards for explaining the aforementioned physics problem to the ref. A 30 yard penalty. Oh, yes, it was in Lincoln...shocking.
 


It sounds great in principle. The Gophers could have benefited from this.

Will it eliminate bias in favor of certain teams? I don't think so.
 

Not a fan of a second targeting call resulting in an additional one game suspension.
 

die hard gopher said:
Not a fan of a second targeting call resulting in an additional one game suspension.
Click to expand...

Mix opinions. 1. Will it clean it up? 2. Will officials be hesitate to call it knowing that it may result in an additional game suspension especially if it is borderline etc.?
 

#2Gopher said:
Mix opinions. 1. Will it clean it up? 2. Will officials be hesitate to call it knowing that it may result in an additional game suspension especially if it is borderline etc.?
Click to expand...

Nope.
Nope.
 



If I were in charge, I would make targeting only a 15 yard penalty but have it trigger an automatic review by the NCAA once the game is over. The refs could still eject players if they were being particularly violent and intentionally trying to hurt people but otherwise, let the player stay in the game. Then, after the game, the NCAA looks at it. If they think it was intentional or malicious, they can suspend the player for any length of time that is appropriate. If they think it was accidental, they give the player a warning and it starts a counter. Once that counter gets to a certain number (probably 3), the player is suspended for their next game. If it's something like the hit on Penn State's kicker from a few years back where the ref threw the flag for the result, not the hit, the NCAA apologizes and it doesn't count against the player.

That way, legitimate accidents aren't punished unless they become a habit but dirty players are appropriately punished. It seems like a majority of targeting calls are on plays where the player's reaction time wasn't good enough to avoid the hit or they were already committed to it rather than being malicious which doesn't seem fair to punish. Unless offensive players keep their head at the same level during the entire play, some hits to the head will be unavoidable and it's unreasonable to lump those in with guys who are clearly headhunting.
 

die hard gopher said:
Not a fan of a second targeting call resulting in an additional one game suspension.
Click to expand...

If targeting was perfectly called then I think it's a good idea, but they still have a long ways to go before they sort out the issues.
 

The ejection thing bothers me as many targeting calls are in error. Add on more yardage if needed but get rid of the ejections.
 

tikited said:
The ejection thing bothers me as many targeting calls are in error. Add on more yardage if needed but get rid of the ejections.
Click to expand...

Unless the targeting is totally uncalled for.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom