Changes hopefully coming to ridiculous targeting rules.

[Go Canes!!]

 

[duke4heisman]

It's ridiculous! Let them play!

 

[Cane1996]

Swing too far one way, then the inevitable retraction.

 

[ssj4cane]

Get rid of the one game suspension when the penalty is committed. Majority of these fouls aren't blatant.

 

[skeeter]

Best news possible

 

[DamnLiesAndStatistics]

Thank God. I get worried every single play that Bandy is going to be ejected for targeting. Even when we're on offense

 

[GAhurricane]

its still not enough. a player should never be thrown out for trying to make a tackle unless its clear they are intentionally trying to injure someone.

 

[Home Slice]

Game is way too fast for refs to get this right.

 

[canesdogo]

Instant replay was supposed to be the showpiece for perfect and exact calls on targeting .....................**** no..
It took these guys 5-8 minutes to decide anything, and even then, it was a swing to go with a targeting call or no...."was it intentional, was there a lean, can't target with a shoulder, was the aim for the head or the chest, was the player relaxed and defenseless when hit"...so much subjective **** it was ridiculous....
If called against a player, he should be suspended for the next 1/4 on a glancing or unintentional.
If malicious, the player should be thrown out of the game, but can play the next game with no questions asked.
Also max of 3 minutes to decide if the play is targeting or not......

 

[RBhurricane87]

The rule is too subjective

We got screwed twice this year because of it

There was clear "targeting" in the Bama-Clemson game where the Bama defender should've been ejected (per the rule), and it wasn't even reviewed

There should be 2 tiers of the penalty, much like a flagrant foul in basketball



For reference, this wasn't reviewed:

 

[g8rh8rMD]

Honestly, the problem with the rule cuts in both directions.

It’s too draconian and subjective in that players are getting ejected when they were doing all the right things and the helmets just happened to touch because of the ballcarrier making a move at the last second or because of just dumb bad luck.

On the other hand, guys clearly head hunting and diving crown first at a QB who has already given himself up get the same exact penalty as someone who was honestly just trying to make a good clean tackle.

The rule itself just needs to be expanded to have a greater penalty for obvious intent, probably as action taken after the game is over. Officials need to be trained better to consider the “forcible” language in the rule when they make their decisions.

I don’t trust the ACC or college referees to do the right thing on either account. At the end of the day, these biases, lack of accountability, and lack of professionalism are the real problems.

 

[Paranos]

Some of the games were ridiculous, I got refs targeting right here

Spoiler: Launching and leading with the crown of the head to make Forcible Contact with a defenseless Playa

Go Canes

 

[SrfGtr]

For reference, this wasn't reviewed:

***** freshman dips his head has no clue how to run ; text book safe tackle form from defender and some clown here thinks it’s a missed call ... scrap it ! If a CIS genius can’t get it right what chance do biased refs have?

 

[For_The_U]

The obvious need here, IMO, is to add a third option between (1) targeting upheld and player ejected and (2) pick up flag and no call. Allow for it to be targeting and a 15yd penalty but no ejection if there wasn't intent or under certain circumstances, etc. Of course that adds another layer of subjectivity that people will criticize, but the ejection on some of the targeting calls this year was absurd.

 

[For_The_U]

***** freshman dips his head has no clue how to run ; text book safe tackle form from defender and some clown here thinks it’s a missed call ... scrap it ! If a CIS genius can’t get it right what chance do biased refs have?

Whether you personally agree with it or not, that clip above of Lawrence is 100% a targeting under the current rule because he lead with the crown of his helmet, regardless of the fact Lawrence dipped down himself. I don't like it being called there as there is no intent, but unquestionably that should have been a targeting and an ejection under the rule as presently written.

 

[1mg of Epi]

***** freshman dips his head has no clue how to run ; text book safe tackle form from defender and some clown here thinks it’s a missed call ... scrap it ! If a CIS genius can’t get it right what chance do biased refs have?

That’s a pretty clear case of the definition of targeting. But we all appreciate the tough guy act. Very intimidating.

 

[TheEye]

Intent is next to impossible to judge. The players don't have eyes on top of their heads. Often I see helmets change position after the crown is lowered.

 

[duke4heisman]

Whether you personally agree with it or not, that clip above of Lawrence is 100% a targeting under the current rule because he lead with the crown of his helmet, regardless of the fact Lawrence dipped down himself. I don't like it being called there as there is no intent, but unquestionably that should have been a targeting and an ejection under the rule as presently written.

Exactly, LOL at this Baga fan. That was a textbook definition of helmet to helmet. I don't like the rule but that was clearly targeting.

 

[Poptimus]

Intent is next to impossible to judge. The players don't have eyes on top of their heads. Often I see helmets change position after the crown is lowered.

Intent doesn't even matter. If a player dips the crown of the helmet to drill a player in the shoulder, but happens to miss and hits a guy in the head, it's still targeting.

 

[mdpcane]

It's ridiculous! Let them play!