A few questions?

[goatcreekgriz]

I did think that, but not the scenario I’m talking about. He was an offensive player tackling.

I did think that, but not the scenario I’m talking about. He was an offensive player tackling.

How often do you see a running back lower his head to create contact and get called for targeting? Almost never.

Cookus was not tackling. He was called for targeting and ejected after throwing a block.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

It is a stupid double standard of the rules. Why does the offensive player get to do that and the defender can't? I get trucking someone with a shoulder and knocking them down, I'm all for that but helmet to helmet contact initiated by a RB should be targeting. Case Cookus is the only exception and he didn't even have the ball.

There is no double standard. The rule states tackle, block, or play on the ball, which would not include the ball carrier.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I did think that, but not the scenario I’m talking about. He was an offensive player tackling.

How often do you see a running back lower his head to create contact and get called for targeting? Almost never.

Ball carrier falls outside of the rule.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Yep, that’s what I figured. I don’t think you understand the basis of the rule. It was specifically designed to avoid the subjectivity you are suggesting.

I’m allowed to disagree with how they’ve set up the rule.

No, he was blocking.
Again, not sure you understand the rule. It does not include ball carriers

You’re right! I completely forgot that. For some reason I had it in my mind it was after he threw a pick.

I understand the rule. I just disagree with it. Is that fair? It could/should be done better. An ejection for an unintentional bang-bang play is too much, should only be for egregious plays.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Ball carrier falls outside of the rule.

I understand that. I think that’s stupid.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I understand that. I think that’s stupid.

Not sure you understand the basis of the rule.

 

[SoldierGriz]

Fife definitely throws a more consistent deep ball which AY can fix with reps. But AY has the big advantage of being faster, more agile (his backdoor escape), and goes through his progressions faster. Fife takes wayyy too much time in the pocket to make a decision. He can run but doesn't have the quick cuts. AY is dangerous with the QB draw and the RPOs they call for him. I'm glad we have BOTH on our team because they are two very good QBs. Honestly, when is the last time we can say we have two QBs who can manage the game?

They have a bag of riches in the backfield, no doubt.

 

[armonte]

Not sure you understand the basis of the rule.

Just a suggestion, use a pendulum when talking these kinds of rules, swing back and forth from extremes and come to rest at some compromise over time.

 

[#15 Fan]

Not sure you understand the basis of the rule.

Isn't the basis of the rule to protect the players? Pretty sure the huge lawsuit against the NFL and the CTE arguments are what kick-started targeting penalties and ejections, long overdue in my opinion. But I'm going to agree with PT here, why is it ok for a ball carrier to lower his helmet to create helmet-to-helmet contact? Is that safer that other targeting penalties? I don't agree with the way the rule is written, and this is one of the things I don't agree with.

 

[garizzalies]

Isn't the basis of the rule to protect the players? Pretty sure the huge lawsuit against the NFL and the CTE arguments are what kick-started targeting penalties and ejections, long overdue in my opinion. But I'm going to agree with PT here, why is it ok for a ball carrier to lower his helmet to create helmet-to-helmet contact? Is that safer that other targeting penalties? I don't agree with the way the rule is written, and this is one of the things I don't agree with.

The rule was designed to protect defenseless players, like receivers coming down with the football, QBs attempting a pass, or Strahm getting blindsided with an earhole block by Cookus:

Ball carriers and tacklers are not defenseless, know the hit is coming, and can prepare accordingly.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Isn't the basis of the rule to protect the players? Pretty sure the huge lawsuit against the NFL and the CTE arguments are what kick-started targeting penalties and ejections, long overdue in my opinion. But I'm going to agree with PT here, why is it ok for a ball carrier to lower his helmet to create helmet-to-helmet contact? Is that safer that other targeting penalties? I don't agree with the way the rule is written, and this is one of the things I don't agree with.

It is meant to protect players when in a vulnerable state, which a back running into a linebacker at the LOS isn't considered. You are looking at times when both players are not ready for the contact. Blindside blocks, receivers when catching, QB's when throwing and such. A defensive player making a tackle is not considered. The targeting rule isn't all inclusive.