'Rique's Targeting Call

yeti92

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
873
Yea, was a BS call IMO. Rique lowered his head (literally every football player does this every time they hit someone), but he made contact with his shoulder, and the ballcarrier certainly wasn't defenseless and lowered his crown into the side of Tariq's head. The refs were horrible all night, arbitrary targeting calls (why was the dirty hit on Yates at the end not targeting?), managed to miss Clemson holding every single play right in front of the refs but make phantom holding calls on us that even the garbage announcers were calling them out on.
 

Jacket05

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
365
Man I hate that he got ejected but that is going to be a targeting penalty every time. He lowers his head as he makes the tackle and initiates contact with the crown of his helmet onto the Clemson players helmet. If he had kept his head up it would have been a clean hit but lowering it like that will get the penalty 100% of the time.

In addition, one of the main reasons for that penalty is to protect from injuries like what happened to Tariq on the play.
 

85Escape

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
775
So a running back can't be called for targeting for lowering his head to initiate contact? I wasn't aware that was part of the rule.

It looks like Tarique turned his head to the side to try to come across the runners forward trajectory and hit him with his shoulder, and the running back lowered his head into Tarique's and 'forcibly initiated contact'.

I guess we need to train our backs to target defensive helmets to get them kicked out of the game.
 

BleedGoldNWhite21

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
756
So a running back can't be called for targeting for lowering his head to initiate contact? I wasn't aware that was part of the rule.

It looks like Tarique turned his head to the side to try to come across the runners forward trajectory and hit him with his shoulder, and the running back lowered his head into Tarique's and 'forcibly initiated contact'.

I guess we need to train our backs to target defensive helmets to get them kicked out of the game.

Even if the Clemson player didn’t lower his head, it would have been called targeting. As long as you lower your head and lead with the crown of the helmet and hit them anywhere from upper chest and higher, you’re getting called for targeting. Clemson got called for targeting on a hit on Yates that didn’t hit Yates in the head. It was the correct call. You guys are focused on the wrong detail.
 

85Escape

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
775
Even if the Clemson player didn’t lower his head, it would have been called targeting. As long as you lower your head and lead with the crown of the helmet and hit them anywhere from upper chest and higher, you’re getting called for targeting. Clemson got called for targeting on a hit on Yates that didn’t hit Yates in the head. It was the correct call. You guys are focused on the wrong detail.

Fine, then running backs shouldn't be able to lower their head either. It just makes no sense...it either is or it is not okay to lower your head when initiating contact.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
5,904
So a running back can't be called for targeting for lowering his head to initiate contact? I wasn't aware that was part of the rule.

It looks like Tarique turned his head to the side to try to come across the runners forward trajectory and hit him with his shoulder, and the running back lowered his head into Tarique's and 'forcibly initiated contact'.

I guess we need to train our backs to target defensive helmets to get them kicked out of the game.
No—it’s the same in the pros. Even Tom Brady was complaining that the way the rule is set, it rewards QBs for making bad plays and putting their receivers in a bad position.

No one calls or reviews the offensive player for targeting. The rule would be better and probably make the game safer if both players were reviewed and one or both could get ejected.

The rule is one of the reasons why players are learning rugby-style tackles where they go for the legs. The offensive players are lowering their heads even more because of it.
 

85Escape

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
775
No—it’s the same in the pros. Even Tom Brady was complaining that the way the rule is set, it rewards QBs for making bad plays and putting their receivers in a bad position.

No one calls or reviews the offensive player for targeting. The rule would be better and probably make the game safer if both players were reviewed and one or both could get ejected.

The rule is one of the reasons why players are learning rugby-style tackles where they go for the legs. The offensive players are lowering their heads even more because of it.

Well, I change my positions. If Tom B**** is for it then I'm against it. ;)
 

BleedGoldNWhite21

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
756
Fine, then running backs shouldn't be able to lower their head either. It just makes no sense...it either is or it is not okay to lower your head when initiating contact.

Hey, I agree with you. The rule is flawed, but I am just saying, in this specific case, it was the right call. Now that “holding” call that cost us a Gibbs TD or 1st and goal inside the 1 right before the rain delay….That’s a different story. :|
 

augustabuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,828
Even if the Clemson player didn’t lower his head, it would have been called targeting. As long as you lower your head and lead with the crown of the helmet and hit them anywhere from upper chest and higher, you’re getting called for targeting. Clemson got called for targeting on a hit on Yates that didn’t hit Yates in the head. It was the correct call. You guys are focused on the wrong detail.
Yates was "a defenseless player". The CU guy was not.
 

GTBandit22

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
688
I said it in the chat;
I’m okay with the Carpenter call, but the first drive was worse and against a defenseless QB and they reversed it.

I’m just not a big fan of giving these refs more judgment calls to make. They called a flag on an illegal forward pass on the kicking team to end the game, which was 100% backwards. That tells me I don’t don’t want them making too many judgment calls.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,823
So a running back can't be called for targeting for lowering his head to initiate contact? I wasn't aware that was part of the rule.

It looks like Tarique turned his head to the side to try to come across the runners forward trajectory and hit him with his shoulder, and the running back lowered his head into Tarique's and 'forcibly initiated contact'.

I guess we need to train our backs to target defensive helmets to get them kicked out of the game.
I don't much like the "Italian soccer" aspects of this penalty. I suspect that some players are learning about this kind of thing already, probably from each other.

Oth, something like this was inevitable as the players got bigger and faster. I was taught to spear in high school, though my college coaches considered it unsportsmanlike. (True, they didn't object when I blocked that way.) It was no big then; the biggest guy on my high school team was 6'3", 220. Nowadays not only are the players bigger, but they are faster too boot. Physics rules, especially now that we know so much more about head injuries.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,883
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Man I hate that he got ejected but that is going to be a targeting penalty every time. He lowers his head as he makes the tackle and initiates contact with the crown of his helmet onto the Clemson players helmet. If he had kept his head up it would have been a clean hit but lowering it like that will get the penalty 100% of the time.

In addition, one of the main reasons for that penalty is to protect from injuries like what happened to Tariq on the play.
No. The crown of HIS helmet never touched the offensive guy. The side of his helmet made contact when he lowered his shoulder into the runner. He needed to keep his face mask up, but it definitely was not traveling.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,883
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I don't much like the "Italian soccer" aspects of this penalty. I suspect that some players are learning about this kind of thing already, probably from each other.

Oth, something like this was inevitable as the players got bigger and faster. I was taught to spear in high school, though my college coaches considered it unsportsmanlike. (True, they didn't object when I blocked that way.) It was no big then; the biggest guy on my high school team was 6'3", 220. Nowadays not only are the players bigger, but they are faster too boot. Physics rules, especially now that we know so much more about head injuries.
That wasn’t spearing. His head was in front of the runner. The runner initiated the helmet contact. That was dangerous for Carpenter because he got hit in the temple.
 

ThatGuy

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
164
Fine, then running backs shouldn't be able to lower their head either. It just makes no sense...it either is or it is not okay to lower your head when initiating contact.
I have a lot of dislike for the targeting rule - especially how gray the conditions were at first (luckily, they've fixed a bit of that - but it still has its non-black-and-white aspects). At the same time, I understand why it's there - and this instance seemed pretty clear-cut to me, as much as I hated to see it.

That being said, ever since the targeting rule was implemented a few years back, the runner has often continued to do what runners have done for years and years - when a tackle is incoming, they get low. And that often means lowering their heads.

We see it with QBs and RBs the most, but also with WRs after making the catch and turning to advance the ball downfield. You try to get low (I assume "putting your head down and pushing through for extra yards" is the mindset that comes with it - although in some cases, it's just an instinctive reaction to an incoming hit).

So I agree with you wholeheartedly. Since day 1 of the targeting rule, I've been frustrated by this aspect of the game. If the rule is to avoid impact with the crown of the helmet for safety, you should bear some responsibility for moving your helmet into the path of an oncoming player and contributing to the impact.

That being said, that would introduce even more gray areas into an already muddy evaluation rule. I don't expect it to ever happen. IIWII.
 

BleedGoldNWhite21

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
756
That wasn’t spearing. His head was in front of the runner. The runner initiated the helmet contact. That was dangerous for Carpenter because he got hit in the temple.
The Targeting rule is in place to protect the defender as well. The fact that it was dangerous for Carpenter isn’t helping your case.
 
Top