B1G Officials' Interpretation of the Targeting Rule

[xlakehawk]

I doubt that one conference decided to let them take their heads off and another said lets be real ticky tack and throw people out of the game for nothing.

There are bad refs everywhere. With rules like this that can take some judgement, unfortunately you will see calls that are not consistent.

I'd agree that it's no conspiracy, yet the outcome couldn't be communicated much better than you describe. One call borders on ticky tack while the other is not called even though flagrant.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Except that, you know, it was UPHELD by replay, which means by definition that it was correct.

What we have learned the most in this thread is that Iowa has a lot of dumb fans

At least one, anyway.

 

[Hawknick]

As it stands now there is too much power given to the referees in this matter, if you get a crew that is completely incompetent such as in the clown game there is little recourse from the review since the same people who made the bad call to start with were the ones reviewing their own work and this is a conflict of interest.

What there should be is some sort of a central committee that can over rule calls like these. I believe the NFL has something similar. This way people that have a greater understanding of the rule and less bias can review the calls. It would be best if this committee consisted of representatives from each conference to help with fairness. A call such as targeting where a player has to sit out a full game should also require a higher percentage of voters such as 2/3 in order to be called targeting. Also the righting of the rule should be changed to have the words beyond a reasonable doubt rather than if there is any doubt.

 

[jacknicholson]

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."

Yes.....

 

[jacknicholson]

The rule needs to recognize initiation of an unchangeable linear path of the defender and give the defender the benefit of the doubt. A defender could be lined up for a form tackle and move through that motion only to have the offensive player move directly into that unchangeable linear path and trigger a penalty and suspension. It is absurd.

And, Yes......

 

[jacknicholson]

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

I thought it was a terrible call at the time and still do. Lomax was in flight to hit him in the midsection and the clone ducked, in a way causing the contact to the shoulder area.....

It was Not intentional headhunting.....

In a way it was simulaneous combustion.....

 

[HawksMN]

I just watched the Lomax play for the first time now. Thats not targeting folks. Wasn't his fault the clown player crumpled like paper mache.

 

[OttoWagonhurst]

At least one, anyway.

I was actually referring to some other people, but if you want stand up and be counted, be my guest.