The targeting rule needs to be abolished. It's so subjective and its a judgemental call. I'm all for player safety but I hate the targeting rule.
Abolish the targeting rule.
- Thread starter cmags82huskers
- Start date
Just go back to the Personal fouls for hits like this . And if you get multiple penalties you are out for the rest of the game. No punishment for next game.
The spirit of the rule is fine, but with the speed of the game, It’s damn near impossible to officiate. And one call can change 2 games, which is absolutely asinine. Changes the game you’re in, and potentially the next with a suspension. That part of the rule must be removed.
Removing the suspension would remove 90% of the problems with the rule. The other 10% is the strike zone seems to be expanding every year. Used to be just crown of the helmet contacting the other guys helmet. Now it's "head or neck area" and can be any body part, and now they've added a ton of confusion by adding defenseless player rules to the mix. If you're on the field, you're not a defenseless player in my book. Also a rule that needs to change.
Whatever happened to just teaching to tackle within the tacklebox and not lead with your head. That was called spearing in my day. Everyone knew to not spear. Head up, tackle between the hips and shoulders.
What I would like to see changed is a common sense approach to administering the rule. If the player being tackled is ducking down or getting low, then that should be taken into consideration before ejecting players. In other words, if the player removes a clear tacklebox then that's on them. They can either choose to get tackled or try and elude at the expense of their well being. This would allow the boys to play without pussifiying the sport and not penalize the defense for trying to play the game, yet still allows offensive players to choose glory or safety.
What I would like to see changed is a common sense approach to administering the rule. If the player being tackled is ducking down or getting low, then that should be taken into consideration before ejecting players. In other words, if the player removes a clear tacklebox then that's on them. They can either choose to get tackled or try and elude at the expense of their well being. This would allow the boys to play without pussifiying the sport and not penalize the defense for trying to play the game, yet still allows offensive players to choose glory or safety.
I will disagree with you a little on the defenseless player. If a wide receiver stretches out for an over thrown ball he should be off limits for any type of hit. I totally agree on the strike zone area being expanded.
That’s kind of what happened on Gbayors targeting penalty.Sanders went low at he last minute. Sometimes you just can’t pull-up or change at the last second.
It is the suspension part that needs to change. Look, we are all for player safety and there really are way too many concussions in football. But most of these penalties, as others have noted, are way too subjective with little consistency from one call to the next. Heck, even the “expert” that the TV people chat with during the review gives a different opinion half the time from what actually then gets decided. That happened in our game. That has to go.
But if you want to really discourage dangerous hits then just make it an even stiffer penalty, but with greater clarity as to what targeting is. Make it a 20 or 25 yard penalty. That would get any coach’s attention.
But if you want to really discourage dangerous hits then just make it an even stiffer penalty, but with greater clarity as to what targeting is. Make it a 20 or 25 yard penalty. That would get any coach’s attention.