Targeting Review

(Cougarkauz) #1

Is there any point of action Applewhite can take with that awful call?? Protest? Review?

(Dan) #2

I hope so, we need Sprewell next week. Already thin at safety.


I hope so.

(Cary) #4

The administration puts a video together and sends it to AAC HQ to dispute calls.

(PortlandCoog) #5

Targeting rules needs to be revised. I fully support the penalizing of intentional hits, but it seems half the calls are because of incidental contact, and that’s not fair when the athletes are not trying to do anything harmful. Or classify it as intentional and incidental with no ejection or suspension for incidental.


That makes far too much sense.

(Cougarkauz) #7

Anyone have a replay gif?


IIRC, that’s how the rule started and why they had the review. I remember watching a game where targeting was called, the team was penalized, but the player wasn’t ejected. A year or so later the NCAA changed it so all targeting calls were grounds for ejection.


Will they consider reversing it so that Sprewell can play the first half Saturday? Is there a precedent?

(Brad) #10

I’m going to be in the minority here. Not about spreewell, but about asking the refs (especially AAC refs) to assume intent. 1) I don’t have confidence the refs have the ability to do that, 2) if they did, you may start getting players coached to act by half heartedly leading with the head, 3) if you’re a parent of multiple kids, you understand the misuse of “it was an accident” and how you can’t let “accidents” be without repercussions if you expect the behavior to change. The targeting rule may be ruining football as we know it, but it is attempting to make a brutal and violent sport somewhat safer.


I never even saw an angle where it was clear that he had made contact to the ECTC player’s head. He didn’t lead with his helmet. I’m stunned.

(WRB) #12

I agree Brad. Have grandchildren these days and hoping that they will ultimately safely enjoy playing the game I love. It was a lot less safe playing in my day but I think the power and speed of these young men today have a great deal to do with that.


I do agree, somewhat, but at least college football didn’t adopt the terrible terrible QB roughing penalty used in the NFL.

The problem with safety rules is it’s selective. Linemen smash heads every second, a running back going into the hole is going to get hit in the head. What they’re trying to do is limit kill shots, so the game doesn’t resemble a Steelers/Raiders game from the 70s. Football is more concerned with the look of violence and cracking down on it than actually making the game safer.

You can bounce your head off the turf and suffer just as bad a concussion as an ear hole shot. I do agree that you can’t just say oopps I didn’t mean it and play on.

(PortlandCoog) #14

I think the review can determine intent… you can tell when a guy launches and lowers his head versus trying to make a tackle and the other player suddenly moves his head and you can’t avoid a glance of the helmet.

Referees already are subjective on many calls anyway.

(PortlandCoog) #15

Id also add if it’s incidental you still get the 15 yard penalty but you don’t get suspended.


I am pretty sure linemen are the ones with the highest percent and most serious brain issues. Tackles in the open field are not the problem. I do think a targeting penalty can be good, but it has to be a clear rule (launching AND hit to head). Seeing a player get kicked out of a game because a WR fell or ducked and got hit in the head is just stupid. If you care about safety, then why is the WR not penalized for lowering his head in that situation? The defensive player could be coming in for a form tackle and all of a sudden have a helmet to helmet collision. Defensive players have brains too.


Per CMA: No review - the decision from the league on the targeting is final.