Targeting

chuck

chuck

Well-known poster
Swaye's Wigwam
Enough.

I've tried to stay patient since Hills is responsible for the language of that rule. He's trying hard and breathes football and deserves the benefit of time to establish his program. I'm done though. Put that thing to bed.
 
Stanford. Close call but I'm not arguing the call. It's just the rule that sucks. Needs some tweaking.
 
Stanford. Close call but I'm not arguing the call. It's just the rule that sucks. Needs some tweaking.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I love what the NCAA was trying to accomplish with the rule, but it needs some serious rework.
 
For starters, the review should be to determine if there was targeting, not trying to establish that its not. Also, it only ever gets called (that I've seen) against LB & DB while totally ignoring the head to head contact at the line. RB's drop their heads all the time against linemen and never anything called.
 
Stanford. Close call but I'm not arguing the call. It's just the rule that sucks. Needs some tweaking.
Click to expand...

Stanford DB hits the Notre Dame WR in the shoulder pad with his helmet and gets called for targeting. Replay keeps him in the game but the penalty stands. What crap. Agree the replay should be to determine whether the penalty should be enforced. Surely, the rule will be reviewed in the off season and changed. Won't it?
 
For starters, the review should be to determine if there was targeting, not trying to establish that its not. Also, it only ever gets called (that I've seen) against LB & DB while totally ignoring the head to head contact at the line. RB's drop their heads all the time against linemen and never anything called.
Click to expand...

They want to eliminate the hits, which is why "guilty until proven innocent". They should absolutely revoke the 15 yards too if it is not targeting.

You're totally right about the RBs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top