I have no wagering or rooting interest in this particular game, this is just truth. How many outcomes have been altered by targeting ejections in the 2016-17 season? This game is played so fast and so little of these hits are malicious. Remember when football was a contect sport? Somewhere, Al Toon and Art Monk are laughing
They might know the rule but when you ask players to go less than 100% that's when other injuries happen. Maybe the penalty was warranted per the rule but no ejection was needed for that. I saw a game earlier in the season where a DB tried to seperate a WR from the ball ( what we would call a good hit years ago) get a penalty and ejection. The reason I said al Toon is laughing is because he took an absolute BEATING and would probably see the game as I do now- much safer, but soft and barely a contact sport. Everything is a penalty now. Look at the Lions getting a penalty for basically tackling too hard. Time to start handicapping rugby I guess
The rule is good but the way it's written is the problem. For the obvious ones ok but there is way too much grey area.
It is called much too often and literally decides outcomes of games with the way it's written.
When you are calling it on a punt return you are just an official looking to make a call. I have seen it happen.
the rule is well meaning but written very, very poorly. They need to fix it as it's ruining too many games
It is called much too often and literally decides outcomes of games with the way it's written.
When you are calling it on a punt return you are just an official looking to make a call. I have seen it happen.
the rule is well meaning but written very, very poorly. They need to fix it as it's ruining too many games
if you want to eliminate concussions, take away the face masks and hard shell helmets. As long as you have those and tacklers are not concerned about injuring themselves, they will instinctively lead with their heads. They can't help it, that is how they have been taught to tackle since grade school. Tackling with shoulder pads requires the tackler to pick a side and that increases the chance he will miss.
You can go 100% without launching your head towards your opponent.
Agree that its called too often, and as Hawk says its written poorly.
But this one today? Dude launched his head into him, that was just a dumb play and warranted.
I do agree with you that the rule needs tightening up.
Some calls are obvious. But sometimes the game moves so fast that it's impossible not to appear like your going for the head. Some players are hard enough to get a hand on so if you go to hit at the chest and the player ducks it's targeting. When both players are moving so fast it's hard to say the guy meant to go for the head. at full speed sometimes it's asking too much of he defender to predict where the other guy's head is gonna go
did someone really just type that if you want to eliminate concussions then get rid of hard-shelled helmets? Rugby has as many, or more, concussions than football with a similar amount of head contact but with smaller and slower men.
my issue with the targeting rule is that it was truly meant to eliminate the use of your head/helmet as a weapon but, because of super slow motion replay, has added incidental and inconsequential contact. And, of course, there is no consistency with all of the calls.
In the Pitt game last week QB Peterman took a pretty obvious targeting shot to the head that KO'd him from the Northwestern game. They reviewed and said something about it not being targeting because Peterman's "head turned"? isn't that called a REFLEX that your brain, at the very last second, sensed helmet-to-helmet contact and told your neck to start turning out of the way? In the 1st half Conner took a helmet-to-facemask shot from NW player and it wasn't even reviewed. He also was KO'd for the rest of the game.
There's been no evidence to suggest that these new rules are even decreasing the amount of concussions in football. They'e brought awareness, and now players are leaving game either because they've been penalized or because of safety reasons, but i can see why someone thinks it's ruining football.
I would argue the inability for a def back to touch a receiver without a free first down is a bigger spoiler....
my issue with the targeting rule is that it was truly meant to eliminate the use of your head/helmet as a weapon but, because of super slow motion replay, has added incidental and inconsequential contact. And, of course, there is no consistency with all of the calls.
In the Pitt game last week QB Peterman took a pretty obvious targeting shot to the head that KO'd him from the Northwestern game. They reviewed and said something about it not being targeting because Peterman's "head turned"? isn't that called a REFLEX that your brain, at the very last second, sensed helmet-to-helmet contact and told your neck to start turning out of the way? In the 1st half Conner took a helmet-to-facemask shot from NW player and it wasn't even reviewed. He also was KO'd for the rest of the game.
There's been no evidence to suggest that these new rules are even decreasing the amount of concussions in football. They'e brought awareness, and now players are leaving game either because they've been penalized or because of safety reasons, but i can see why someone thinks it's ruining football.
I would argue the inability for a def back to touch a receiver without a free first down is a bigger spoiler....
