Wing Targeting Call

[Da Boyz Mom]

Not holding out hope for an appeal. Riley Wilson had a super ticky-tack one last year that was upheld. Guess we'll see!

Which all goes to prove that it's far too subjective. There were hits by Idaho in that game that were very similar to the hit by Wing, yet there were no flags on any of those plays. I honestly feel sorry for these players sometimes, because they are put in a no-win situation. They can be making a perfectly legal tackle but if the other player moves in a certain way then that changes the entire equation and all of a sudden now you've got a targeting penalty. It needs to be extremely egregious and obviously intentional to throw the flag in my opinion.

 

[grizindabox]

Which all goes to prove that it's far too subjective. There were hits by Idaho in that game that were very similar to the hit by Wing, yet there were no flags on any of those plays. I honestly feel sorry for these players sometimes, because they are put in a no-win situation. They can be making a perfectly legal tackle but if the other player moves in a certain way then that changes the entire equation and all of a sudden now you've got a targeting penalty. It needs to be extremely egregious and obviously intentional to throw the flag in my opinion.

Wouldn't trying to determine intent make the decision even more subjective?

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

Wouldn't trying to determine intent make the decision even more subjective?

Yeah you're probably right - poor choice of words on my part. What I mean is that it would just need to be far more egregious than what they're throwing the flag for these days.

 

[grizindabox]

Yeah you're probably right - poor choice of words on my part. What I mean is that it would just need to be far more egregious than what they're throwing the flag for these days.

That still adds more subjectivity. I am not sure there is a better way.

 

[Grisly Fan]

That still adds more subjectivity. I am not sure there is a better way.

Since every single call (or lack of) on the field is left to the judgement of a single human being, I am not sure how you make any call more subjective. Yes, sometimes calls are over-ridden but not often.

 

[grizindabox]

Since every single call (or lack of) on the field is left to the judgement of a single human being, I am not sure how you make any call more subjective. Yes, sometimes calls are over-ridden but not often.

So you don't think trying to determine intent of the hit isn't adding more subjective criteria?

 

[Dont Kick 2 Bergen]

Need to penalize offensive players when they drop into a defensive players plane. All you do with this stupid rule is try and get defensive players hurt and make them play reluctantly. We have to react in a split second to make a tackle and choose an angle, then offensive player put his head there and we get screwed. Hate this rule just let hitting be legal in football again.

Same with sideline plays where an offensive player acts like hes going out of bounds then doesn't, defense should be allowed to hit

 

[grizfan07]

Targeting is such a subjective call, as most penalties are. But I 100% agree that just cuz you have the ball doesn’t mean you can’t be ejected. Running backs who lead with the head vs shoulder should be ejected for targeting. It just hurts defensive players. I think the easy way to establish intent is launching. We’ve seen NFL players who launch their bodies into someone and lead with the head and shoulder. That’s intentional vs someone who comes in to tackle and drops the head. So targeting should be two categories.
T1 - no launching, maybe incidental helmet to helmet/shoulder to helmet, 15 yard penalty, no ejection. But two T1s and you’re out like Unsportsman like conduct.

T2- launching into a player from side or front with helmet to helmet where your body may even leave the ground like I’ve seen some NFL players do. Automatic ejection and 15 yards, maybe even a suspension upon league review if it’s bad enough.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Wouldn't trying to determine intent make the decision even more subjective?

I believe intent should be factored in. Did they bump into each other? Did the defender put his head down and go for the tackle up high. Of course, intent should be part of what the ref factors in.

 

[grizindabox]

I believe intent should be factored in. Did they bump into each other? Did the defender put his head down and go for the tackle up high. Of course, intent should be part of what the ref factors in.

I think your questions are pretty much addressed in the guidelines of targeting. Also, outside of the intent to tackle, I am not sure how you can dive much deeper into intent outside what is already in the guidelines.

 

[argh!]

Targeting is such a subjective call, as most penalties are. But I 100% agree that just cuz you have the ball doesn’t mean you can’t be ejected. Running backs who lead with the head vs shoulder should be ejected for targeting. It just hurts defensive players. I think the easy way to establish intent is launching. We’ve seen NFL players who launch their bodies into someone and lead with the head and shoulder. That’s intentional vs someone who comes in to tackle and drops the head. So targeting should be two categories.
T1 - no launching, maybe incidental helmet to helmet/shoulder to helmet, 15 yard penalty, no ejection. But two T1s and you’re out like Unsportsman like conduct.

T2- launching into a player from side or front with helmet to helmet where your body may even leave the ground like I’ve seen some NFL players do. Automatic ejection and 15 yards, maybe even a suspension upon league review if it’s bad enough.

good post, especially the part about running backs intentionally leading with their heads being penalized.

 

[Dont Kick 2 Bergen]

Or you could just get rid of the stupid rule and play football. Cue the safety nazis!

 

[mthoopsfan]

I think your questions are pretty much addressed in the guidelines of targeting. Also, outside of the intent to tackle, I am not sure how you can dive much deeper into intent outside what is already in the guidelines.

I think I just asked one question. Did they bump into each other? The rules addresses whether they bumped into each other? I didn't know the rules were that specific.

 

[Griz in Texas]

What about when the offensive player lowers their head and initiates contact? The intent of the rule was to take all of this out of the game, but I have never seen an offensive player flagged.
Still, this is like when the speed limit was "reasonable and prudent." The way they deal with this leaves too much at the discretion of the video team and never makes it clear to the players where the line is drawn.
This penalty was not even flagged on the field, it was the video review team that decided they needed to look at it, which is why there was so much confusion. It was a four minute break between the third and fourth quarter and no mention of it on television.

 

[Griz in Texas]

I think I just asked one question. Did they bump into each other? The rules addresses whether they bumped into each other? I didn't know the rules were that specific.

They didn't bump into each other. Look at the video that was posted. Wing is tackling the guy from behind and his arm wraps over the shoulder as they are going down.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I wonder if the guy in the video/replay booth ever played football?

 

[mthoopsfan]

They didn't bump into each other. Look at the video that was posted. Wing is tackling the guy from behind and his arm wraps over the shoulder as they are going down.

The video is so bad that I can't see what happened. Give us some still screen shots to show what happened. If what you said is true, where/what was the targeting. It didn't look like much of a hit or contact to me, on the bad video I saw.

 

[Griz in Texas]

The video is so bad that I can't see what happened. Give us some still screen shots to show what happened. If what you said is true, where/what was the targeting. It didn't look like much of a hit or contact to me, on the bad video I saw.

Unless someone recorded on a phone or something, there is no other video that we have. When TV comes back from commercial, they are talking over the referee who is in the background and sounds like the transmission is broken up as he is announcing the disqualification. They were too busy talking about whatever they are talking about coming out of commercial, again, after a 4 minute break you would think that would raise questions. They never said anything on television. I had a head phone in listening to the radio stream and Riley said they are reviewing to see if the ball was snapped before the end of the quarter and then they announced Wing was tossed, but they had no look at it. I think they are ordinarily right next to the replay booth, but they got no further explanation and I didn't hear anyone talking about it in the post game to clarify.
We might have to suck this up and just do without him for the first half and hope this is our one glitch against Idaho State.
I watched the Northern Colorado game and they were not that impressive, but they did run all over UNC. We will be alright, we made it through the fourth quarter against Idaho without him, next man up time.

 

[Griz Addict]

Im telling yall it was targeting.. I was maybe 15 yards away and they were facing me. He lead with the helmet and hit the idaho player in the helmet.

 

[Griz in Texas]

Im telling yall it was targeting.. I was maybe 15 yards away and they were facing me. He lead with the helmet and hit the idaho player in the helmet.

I'm not doubting what you saw, but I don't get how you can be running from a slight angle, mostly from behind, and lead with the head. He didn't launch for sure.
There was some camera angle they had that led them to call it and it could have started when they were checking the clock to see the snap came before the end of the quarter.