Targeting

[Milwaukee]

A little hyperbolic, don't you think? Much better to call it wrong than to miss one. If they want to save football they need a rule that anytime the crown of the helmet is used, whether for a tackle or on the ball, it is an ejection. Those are dangerous weapons.

Jesus Christ

 

[Towaliga]

Jesus Christ

I think he played before the advent of the modern helmet. His tackling style involved turning his cheek ( or the other cheek, I forget which one).

 

[Skeptic]

Jesus Christ

Him too.

 

[Boomergump]

This one that cost us Gotsis for a game is where I think there needs to be two levels of targeting. He didn't launch, he didn't lead with his helmet, he just wrapped him up and took him to the ground and sadly they helmets hit.

For the life of me, I do not understand how a player can be called for targeting if he wraps up on the tackle. Gotsis was wrapped up all the way to the ground. Try to imagine launching yourself into a guy with the crown of your helmet and then getting your arms up over your head and around him. It just doesn't work. A clash of face masks is not targeting.

 

[takethepoints]

I know that this penalty is difficult to call, but I think it's necessary.

There's a rash of concussions in football. I don't think it is happening because of player's using certain techniques. It's almost all due to simple physics. I used to lead with my head in both blocking and tackling; that's how I was taught. Further, the only concern in those days was neck injuries. How come?

I played in college (Div 3) and high school at 5'10", 200 lbs. I played both OL and DL at that weight and was about the usual size. The biggest guys on all the teams I played on were the same size: 6'3", 220lbs. Iow, about the same size as most RBs today. Linemen are typically in the 6'2" - 6'5", 260 -320 lb. range and they are trained up to be both stronger and faster. No wonder more people are getting their heads knocked off.

Well, we can't stop young men from growing and there are limits to equipment improvements. Result = new penalties aimed at trying to reduce head to head contact. It's either that or parents will increasingly withdraw their sons from football, as is now the trend. The sport will not die from this, but it'll get replaced by soccer if this continues. It'll become like football in Japan (They play football in Japan!? Yes.), a minor college sport, sort of like wrestling.

That may happen anyway, but if targeting penalties can reduce the injuries that endanger both the players and the sport, then we need to keep them.

 

[Madison Grant]

The reality is this- this is a rule that was written by the NCAA's lawyers. It is written not to protect anyone or enhance the game, but to keep them from getting their pants sued off. The assignment of 'negligence' today is completely abritrary. Why can you sign a waiver just in case your kid breaks his/her ankle going down a water slide at a school activity and that covers it, but you can't sign a concussion/brain damage waiver to play football? Because it's like everything else that 'social justice' movements touch. It's about as concerned with social justice as Judas was concerned with helping the poor.

 

[jacketup]

I was just telling my dad this. They have adjust the rule to not immediately DQ a guy if the hit isn't egregious. Like a yellow card/red card kind of thing. Crazy to lose guys for hits like the Clemson hit or Gotsis vs unc a couple years back

You can't compare the Gotsis/UNC hit to what the Clemson kid did on Saturday. The UofL player was in the grasp of two other Clemson players and was going down. Number 19 then launches with the crown of his helmet for helmet to helmet contact. What he did was far more dangerous than any chop block, and should be penalized accordingly. It was a good call.

Gotsis made a solo tackle with head up. The only reason he was called was because we were playing UNC, where the rules are different. If you want to advocate a rules change, let's make the Tobacco Road schools play by the same set of rules as everyone else. In all sports.

 

[deeeznutz]

I really think switching back from our solid shell helmets to the old-school padded leather helmets would do a lot to reduce concussions, except there'd probably be an increase in injuries the first few years as everyone adjusted to the new normal. You're not really likely to launch yourself head-first at someone when you don't have a big ol exoskeleton on your head. Tackling would begin to look more like rugby or aussie rules football...still a violent, physical sport but not dealing with the catastrophic head injuries we see in football (or maybe I'm wrong about rugby/aussie football and head injuries and they're having similar issues in Australia...anyone?).

 

[bke1984]

The Gotsis play makes me angry every time I watch it because that kind of tackle is not what the rule is designed to prevent. The targeting penalties exist because for several years there players were launching their bodies like a missile at defenseless players. You can't go throwing people out of games for making form tackles where helmets happen to touch...it's just silly. There's absolutely no way to prevent that sort of thing from happening in football. The game is too fast and helmets are going to collide. A hit looking violent where heads happen to collide should not be grounds for a targeting penalty and an ejection. It should be based on intent at the discretion of the official. I know that leaves the door open, but it is what it is at that point. If a defender wraps up with both arms around a player to make a tackle and their heads happen to hit then so be it...it's football...it happens...and yes, it can cause concussions...but no more so than the players head slamming into the ground when he's tackled around the waste and planted on his back.

BTW...side note here. Anyone ever seen a targeting penalty called when O-linemen and D-linemen collide at the snap? Or when linebackers are blocked by O-linemen? Or when players are blindsided on interception blocks? I don't recall ever seeing any of these...which is probably where most concussions occur on the football field....away from the ball

 

[Skeptic]

... we were playing UNC, where the rules are different. If you want to advocate a rules change, let's make the Tobacco Road schools play by the same set of rules as everyone else. In all sports.

This

 

[takethepoints]

You're not really likely to launch yourself head-first at someone when you don't have a big ol exoskeleton on your head. Tackling would begin to look more like rugby or aussie rules football...still a violent, physical sport but not dealing with the catastrophic head injuries we see in football.

Yep. I was just at a periodic lunch with my old (believe it) high school classmates. They were showing a UK rugby game on the TVs. A lot of the players were like US football players, mostly like DEs, LBs, and RBs though there was one guy who weighed about 270 out there. Since it's rugger, there were no pads allowed (except ear protectors). There was not a single clear hit a la US football in the entire match. Tackles were by grabbing the shoulders of the opposing player and dragging him down.

I don't think we'll get rid of present equipment and we'll keep trying to improve it to reduce injury. The perverse result will probably be to free players more and more of inhibitions to hit each other as the chances of certain injuries go down. I don't see a way out of this except by rule changes.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

Yep. I was just at a periodic lunch with my old (believe it) high school classmates. They were showing a UK rugby game on the TVs. A lot of the players were like US football players, mostly like DEs, LBs, and RBs though there was one guy who weighed about 270 out there. Since it's rugger, there were no pads allowed (except ear protectors). There was not a single clear hit a la US football in the entire match. Tackles were by grabbing the shoulders of the opposing player and dragging him down.

I don't think we'll get rid of present equipment and we'll keep trying to improve it to reduce injury. The perverse result will probably be to free players more and more of inhibitions to hit each other as the chances of certain injuries go down. I don't see a way out of this except by rule changes.

Have said for years that the introduction of the face mask also introduced spinal injuries. I don't have any data, but it just seems the devastating injuries did not take place until modern equipment was in use. But I think you are correct, the equipment will continue to improve and make the players feel invincible to throw their bodies into collisions.

 

[danny daniel]

Yep. I was just at a periodic lunch with my old (believe it) high school classmates. They were showing a UK rugby game on the TVs. A lot of the players were like US football players, mostly like DEs, LBs, and RBs though there was one guy who weighed about 270 out there. Since it's rugger, there were no pads allowed (except ear protectors). There was not a single clear hit a la US football in the entire match. Tackles were by grabbing the shoulders of the opposing player and dragging him down.

I don't think we'll get rid of present equipment and we'll keep trying to improve it to reduce injury. The perverse result will probably be to free players more and more of inhibitions to hit each other as the chances of certain injuries go down. I don't see a way out of this except by rule changes.

I would prefer to start with a weight limit. The current game gives incentive to healthy 220# players to bulk up to 300#. The game would be safer and faster (more exciting) with smaller quicker players and there is a bigger selection of them.

 

[alagold]

Its textbook targeting. He led with the crown. The area above his mask is literally the first thing to make contact with the head of a QB in a throwing motion. That's a good call and for the record I don't think one bad play by Gotsis cost us the game.

Just to clarify--what is the "crown"?.To me,it is the top of the helmet ,NOT the forehead.Gotsis hit with forehead and it wasn't really the first thing that hit.His only alternative would be try to jump up and "smother" the head of the QB in his chest..--Maybe that is what is expected.

 

[deeeznutz]

I would prefer to start with a weight limit. The current game gives incentive to healthy 220# players to bulk up to 300#. The game would be safer and faster (more exciting) with smaller quicker players and there is a bigger selection of them.

That'd bring in an entirely new set of health issues, as players would try to do the whole bulk up then quickly shed weight for weigh ins (like you see in boxing, MMA, wrestling, etc). Also, it'd be unfairly punishing larger sized individuals from ever having a chance to play. Some people (for example on our own team, Shamire Devine and Brandon Adams) are physically incapable of getting down anywhere near 220 lbs without taking making some seriously unhealthy choices.

 

[DirtyDingusMagee]

Jesus Christ

...would have been downgraded to a 3* for committing to a non-SEC school?

 

[takethepoints]

Have said for years that the introduction of the face mask also introduced spinal injuries. … I don't have any data, but it just seems the devastating injuries did not take place until modern equipment was in use. But I think you are correct, the equipment will continue to improve and make the players feel invincible to throw their bodies into collisions.

My favorite on this kind of thing: back in the 70's the US started a program in lower Kenya (the desert, iow) to help the Masai people down there do a better job raising cattle that could sell on international markets and provide them with more milk and meat (and blood; they like to mix milk and blood as a porridge) to eat. It worked! The herds got bigger and the steers were better quality.

Suddenly, the local game wardens noticed that more and more lions were dying of sickness. What could be happening?

Turns out that as a result of having bigger herds that needed bigger pastures, the Masai were buying and breeding more dogs. The dogs were exposing the lions to canine rabies and, since the lions had no native immunity, they were dropping like flies.

Now here's the question. Who in his right mind would have predicted before hand that lions (felines, I remind you) would be susceptible to canine rabies? Nobody, of course.

Ever since I read that I've had a healthy respect for the uncertainty that attends every attempt to make things better. I still support reforms whenever we have a decent idea of what the results will be, but I always take the predictions of good things to come with a grain of salt.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

I wonder if , say, 15 years from now they will still allow punt and kickoff return teams?

Although not sure stats prove any inclination towards more serious injuries in those units.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Fwiw, I have less of a problem with the forehead part of the rule then I do with the defenseless player part of the rule.

You can control what part of yourself you aim at somebody. You cannot control if somebody is choosing to defend themselves or not.

If you are in a defenseless position, it is because you have chosen to put yourself in defenseless position, and that's on you. If you don't want to be hit while in a defenseless position, defend yourself.

 

[katlong]

That'd bring in an entirely new set of health issues, as players would try to do the whole bulk up then quickly shed weight for weigh ins (like you see in boxing, MMA, wrestling, etc). Also, it'd be unfairly punishing larger sized individuals from ever having a chance to play. Some people (for example on our own team, Shamire Devine and Brandon Adams) are physically incapable of getting down anywhere near 220 lbs without taking making some seriously unhealthy choices.

Currently, don't you think the reverse it true now, though? It unfairly punishes shorter, smaller, but very talented kids from being able to even be considered?