Targeting, without a doubt? Jimbo thinks so.

[YJAlleyCat]

Hat tip to @thebugman10 at FTRS for finding this:

“[We wanted to] rest his arm a little bit. He took some shots, got him back today, he was practicing,” Fisher said Tuesday. “He was fine. He did get hit a couple times. The worse was in the pocket. It should’ve been a targeting. It was a targeting, without a doubt.”​

Article LINK.

I didn't think the UNC hit by Gotsis should have been targeting, and I don't think any of the hits on Golson were targeting last week. What do you guys think? Was there targeting? Is this penalty too subjective?

 

[CTJacket]

Hat tip to @thebugman10 at FTRS for finding this:

“[We wanted to] rest his arm a little bit. He took some shots, got him back today, he was practicing,” Fisher said Tuesday. “He was fine. He did get hit a couple times. The worse was in the pocket. It should’ve been a targeting. It was a targeting, without a doubt.”​

Article LINK.

I didn't think the UNC hit by Gotsis should have been targeting, and I don't think any of the hits on Golson were targeting last week. What do you guys think? Was there targeting? Is this penalty too subjective?

I agree with your take. Not targeting, and it is DEFINITELY too subjective.

Truthfully it could just be handled as a personal foul anyway. Like CPJ says, we all know when it's a dirty hit.

 

[Ash]

The problem with the penalty is that it is so subjective.

The FSU hit looked "worse" than the UNC one did, but neither should have been targeting.

 

[Minawreck]

what an absolute wuss.

Anyone who calls that out as a "should've been called targeting" tackle doesn't want football to be played.

 

[B Lifsey]

It's like cut blocking...it is only targeting when we do it to them.

 

[jeffgt14]

I’d just start trying to blow their knee out and end their career instead of performing a basic fundamental form tackle because only one of these can be called for targeting.

 

[GTRX7]

The problem with the penalty is that it is so subjective.

The FSU hit looked "worse" than the UNC one did, but neither should have been targeting.

I agree with this. I thought the UNC targeting call was complete BS. Way too much subjectivity there. If they literally called a targeting penalty every single time a tackler's helmet made any sort of contact with the ball carrier, someone would be ejected every third play.

I was at the game and didn't see the Gotsis hit until I watched some of the replay. It looked a good bit worse to me than the UNC hit. That one was in fact closer to the line, though I still think there was clearly no intent to injure, just a high hit. There was just no need for Gotsis to go in as high as he did. I was shocked the announcers didn't even comment on it (at least that I saw).

I still think we win the UNC game if he doesn't get ejected.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Very few targeting calls are what I think of as targeting. It should be defined as the intentional act to hurt a defenseless player, whether it is the head, shoulder, elbow or whatever.

 

[UgaBlows]

What about what they used to do to Little Joe, was that targeting? Attempted assasination maybe...

 

[MidtownJacket]

Very few targeting calls are what I think of as targeting. It should be defined as the intentional act to hurt a defenseless player, whether it is the head, shoulder, elbow or whatever.

just hard to determine intent.. I personally thought the call was the wrong one at UNC and think they got a no call right for the FSU game, but it is like strike zones in pitching, or anything else. As long as the ref calls it consistently I can handle it.

 

[Boomergump]

I don't see how you can call targeting if a tackler wraps up. That makes no sense to me at all.

 

[gtg936g]

If he thought we were targeting, he is going to want Clemson charged with murder.

Rattling a QB's cage is part of the game.

 

[GlennW]

Did anyone watch the Pitt-Syracuse game Saturday? There was a play where the Syracuse (I think it was the Syracuse but it could have been the Pitt) QB was sacked and they called targeting on the defender because he hit the QB high and their facemasks hit, just like when Adam's hit the UNC's QB.

The Ref's did the replay, just like they do on every targeting call, and the replay clearly showed the facemasks hit, just like with Adam, but THIS TIME, they threw out the targeting penalty entirely. No 15 yards and the player stayed in the game.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

You could tell from Golson's body language that the dude was hurting. Very nice to see. And Gotsis did light him up a few times from the sternum on up. There were a few times Golson ran into the line and our players didn't pull anything. Really nice to see.

On an opposite note, JT looked better running than he has. Throwing ..... it is what it is.

 

[Skeptic]

what an absolute wuss.

Anyone who calls that out as a "should've been called targeting" tackle doesn't want football to be played.

Or has just seen another perfect season and a NC contender slot vanish in the wisp of the Miracle on the Flats. His guy had a bad day for a reason, and it was nothing illegal. He got rocked when he should have been rocked, and if you are going to play a pro passing game then that's what happens to those QBs. Whine, whine, whine. (And not to belabor the Johnson point yet again, but when Gotsis was called and ejected Johnson acknowledged that according to the rules, it was targeting. His problem was with the rule.) There was also an FSU targeting in there once on a running back. I just can't remember when to find it on the tape.

 

[Skeptic]

If he thought we were targeting, he is going to want Clemson charged with murder.

Rattling a QB's cage is part of the game.

Now, this I more than like.

 

[Jay Alexander]

The problem with the penalty is that it is so subjective.

The FSU hit looked "worse" than the UNC one did, but neither should have been targeting.

I'm okay with the subjectivity, many/most penalties are subjective. My problem is the stakes are so incredibly high for a targeting penalty. It should take a lot more than a high form tackle to get ejected.

 

[Longestday]

In the UNC game, Gotsis hits with his face mask. I think Gotsis uses his helmet in the FSU game. In both, Gotsis wraps up. I would rather be the UNC QB than the FSU QB. That FSU hit was hard.

 

[00Burdell]

Wow. It wasn't that long ago that F$U tried (and was occasionally successful) in knocking Joe Hamilton out of our games against F$U.

Lemme guess - its only dirty when we do it. Don't live by the sword then complain when you get cut.

 

[Bennett]

You may not agree with targeting called on Gotsis but by the definition of the rule it was def targeting against UNC. The hit on Golson prolly should have been targeting too but we got lucky. Gotsis absolutely destroyed him which I didn't see at the game but noticed during the replay at home. The rule is absolute crap but if you read the rule it is exactly what he did in both plays