B1G Officials' Interpretation of the Targeting Rule

[xlakehawk]

Two hits. One interpreted as targeting, one not (although roughing the passer was called). If the Lomax hit is targeting, the Cockran hit certainly is. The boys in Chicago should be looking at this. Officiating needs to be consistant or the rule will have no point or benefit to anyone.


Cockran:
http://giant.gfycat.com/BewitchedBruisedAntarcticfurseal.gif

Lomax:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11520343

 

[OttoWagonhurst]

Re: B1G Targeting Rule

It's not a Big Ten rule, it's an NCAA rule.

And it's stupid.

 

[uihawk82]

Re: B1G Targeting Rule

I will go one step further and say the Lomax call was not targeting as he didnt go high, he led with his shoulder pad and his upper arm actually made the first contact, not his elbow but his tricep area.

The officials who call these on the field and who review them need to decide at what height did the contact take place. Lomax would have hit that receiver about waist and chest high if the receiver didnt get lowered or lowered himself.

I couldnt believe the MInny defender didnt get tossed as that was completely leading with the crown of your helmet at the head of the passer.

A lot needs to be taken into account of how high the tackler's impact point is when they make contact.

 

[uihawk82]

Re: B1G Targeting Rule

It's not a Big Ten rule, it's an NCAA rule.

And it's stupid.

You are right and wrong.

It is an NCAA rule but it is not stupid. But to throw a player out there should be intent at going for someone's head on purpose and I dont think Lomax was doing that while the Minny player launched high to aim at the head.

There used to be way more cervical vertabra area injuries and paralysis in football 20-30 years ago and it can still happen but much better coaching and training on tackling have really helped to greatly lessen the number of paralytic hits you hear about.

And now we really know how bad the concussion issue is. The helmet to helmet hit is tremendously decelerating to the brain causing it to hit up against the skull. If you want legislation and litigation to eliminate football just keep thinking this is a stupid rule.

Adam Robinson was knocked out of his second game against OSU in 2010 by what most of us thought was a deliberate hit to the head.

 

[LG210]

Re: B1G Targeting Rule

You are right and wrong.

It is an NCAA rule but it is not stupid. But to throw a player out there should be intent at going for someone's head on purpose and I dont think Lomax was doing that while the Minny player launched high to aim at the head.

There used to be way more cervical vertabra area injuries and paralysis in football 20-30 years ago and it can still happen but much better coaching and training on tackling have really helped to greatly lessen the number of paralytic hits you hear about.

And now we really know how bad the concussion issue is. The helmet to helmet hit is tremendously decelerating to the brain causing it to hit up against the skull. If you want legislation and litigation to eliminate football just keep thinking this is a stupid rule.

Adam Robinson was knocked out of his second game against OSU in 2010 by what most of us thought was a deliberate hit to the head.

Agreed that it is not stupid.

My biggest issue is that the refs need to do a better job at factoring in the changing position of the player being tackled. If you begin your tackle aiming at the player's midsection and end up at his head because he changed his position after you initiated your tackle, that clearly should not be penalized.

 

[Sparky]

Re: B1G Targeting Rule

There's a solution to all of this. Learn to tackle correctly.

 

[xlakehawk]

I do realize that the Lomax call was made by a Big 12 officiating crew. My point is that the B1G officials seem to have a different definition of the rule when you look at Cockran and Lomax plays together.

 

[LG210]

Re: B1G Targeting Rule

There's a solution to all of this. Learn to tackle correctly.

Even if everyone knew how to tackle properly, you would still need to penalize those who choose not to tackle properly on a particular play.

 

[uihawk82]

Re: B1G Targeting Rule

Agreed that it is not stupid.

My biggest issue is that the refs need to do a better job at factoring in the changing position of the player being tackled. If you begin your tackle aiming at the player's midsection and end up at his head because he changed his position after you initiated your tackle, that clearly should not be penalized.

^^ Yes that is basically the point I was trying to make about the height at which the tackler makes impact.

 

[OttoWagonhurst]

You can't defend the rule and then criticize how it's being enforced. It makes you look...not smart.

The Lomax play was a textbook violation of the rule and demonstrated 100% correct and consistent enforcement of said rule.

Either get rid of it altogether, or STFU, sit back, and enjoy all of the flags and ejections.

 

[Hawk4Fan]

You can't defend the rule and then criticize how it's being enforced. It makes you look...not smart.

The Lomax play was a textbook violation of the rule and demonstrated 100% correct and consistent enforcement of said rule.

Either get rid of it altogether, or STFU, sit back, and enjoy all of the flags and ejections.

Talk about clueless Lomax wasn't going head hunting the WR was hit from behind knocking him down into the path Lomax had already gone after, it was not his fault the WR was hit from behind lowing him to the ground, that was a stupid penalty and even dumber that was it upheld.

 

[Sparky]

Talk about clueless Lomax wasn't going head hunting the WR was hit from behind knocking him down into the path Lomax had already gone after, it was not his fault the WR was hit from behind lowing him to the ground, that was a stupid penalty and even dumber that was it upheld.

Just because he didn't do it on purpose doesn't mean it wasn't a penalty.

I don't think many face masking penalties are on purpose, do you want to stop calling those too?

 

[GesterHawk]

Did the guy the Minnesota Missle hit leave the game after the hit?

 

[OttoWagonhurst]

Talk about clueless Lomax wasn't going head hunting the WR was hit from behind knocking him down into the path Lomax had already gone after, it was not his fault the WR was hit from behind lowing him to the ground, that was a stupid penalty and even dumber that was it upheld.

The fact that it was upheld should tell you something, genius.

 

[LG210]

You can't defend the rule and then criticize how it's being enforced. It makes you look...not smart.

The Lomax play was a textbook violation of the rule and demonstrated 100% correct and consistent enforcement of said rule.

Either get rid of it altogether, or STFU, sit back, and enjoy all of the flags and ejections.

 

[biasedHAWKEYE]

Lomax hit was not targeting...the receiver fell down into the tackle.

Minnesota player was targeting...would have even been a penalty under the old "spearing" rule. led with helmet, launched into the player with an upward trajectory.

 

[ICHawk24]

Lomax being penalized did follow the rule book to a T.

To me, the biggest problem is that the targeting rule is the only rule that stipulates an automatic ejection.

Lomax was guilty of this, although you can quibble the "target" portion:

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

But there appeared to be no intent (there is no "intent" in the rule). But why is Lomax's hit an automatic ejection, when a horribly flagrant facemask or late hit can be worse, and do not require an ejection?

I would like the rule to be modified to remove the automatic ejection.

 

[LG210]

Lomax being penalized did follow the rule book to a T.

To me, the biggest problem is that the targeting rule is the only rule that stipulates an automatic ejection.

Lomax was guilty of this, although you can quibble the "target" portion:

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

But there appeared to be no intent (there is no "intent" in the rule). But why is Lomax's hit an automatic ejection, when a horribly flagrant facemask or late hit can be worse, and do not require an ejection?

I would like the rule to be modified to remove the automatic ejection.

The rule requires both "target[ing]" and "initiat[ion]".

Lomax clearly "initiated" contact to the head or neck area, but did he also "target" the head or neck area?

The word "target" could be interpreted either to require intent or not--it is not clear. As an aside, given the ordinary usage of the word "target" and the severity of the penalty, I would expect that the rule drafters intended that it be a foul of either intent or reckless abandon, but nonetheless, the rule is ambiguous as to whether intent is required.

Regardless of whether "target" is interpreted to require intent or not, it does, in my opinion, eliminate the situation in which the player being hit moves his head or neck into a position in which it was not previously after the tackler has initiated his tackling action.

 

[Knight78]

Re: B1G Targeting Rule

It's not a Big Ten rule, it's an NCAA rule.

And it's stupid.

Tell that to Dallas Clark, who was victim to the same type of hit in the NFL. That was one hit that began to change the rules throughout.

 

[ICHawk24]

Lomax clearly "initiated" contact to the head or neck area, but did he also "target" the head or neck area?

I don't think he targeted. I think he was running over to make a play, the ISU player started going down, and Lomax collided with him a quarter second later.

Things are happening so fast out there, its ridiculous that they have rules that attempt to read so much into what is going on.

Note that the rule says "when in doubt, its a foul."