-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter exhawg
- Start date
martinss01
blissfully stupid
i don't agree with your opinion here, but i respect it. while i personally don't think there has been any change in the number of dangerous hits. im not certain that is something that could be truly argued with facts either way.
like you my concern isn't so much the rule, but the way it is reviewed and how the punishment is levied. im of the opinion that dangerous contact will never change in this game until you hold the people making the decisions financially accountable for the actions occurring. these kids are looking for the approval from 1 group and 1 group only. their coaches. if their coaches say "yes" it will never matter what a ref or some old fart in a 3 piece suit they have never met or the fear of being held out of a game say. i will always believe that these kids are supremely more likely to respond the way you want if the threat is loosing their starting spot for good because their coach doesn't trust them to play right vrs just sitting out the first half against directional state u.
while i would never condone this type of punishment levied for other penalties (direct fines for coaches) like holding for example. imo the immediate and long term dangers for every player is so high the seriousness needs to be cranked to max here.
but yeah. disagree, but i get why you feel the way you do. :)
Upvote
0
Jake
Once a Buckeye, always a Buckeye
‘17 The Deuce Champ
Fantasy Baseball Champ
'18 The Deuce Champ
The rule is imperfect. It's especially maddening when they review the play and the call still doesn't make sense. But after watching that Steelers-Bengals debacle I appreciate why the rule is in place.
Maybe if they start tossing a few NFL players, and suspending them without pay, some of that garbage would go away?
Maybe if they start tossing a few NFL players, and suspending them without pay, some of that garbage would go away?
Upvote
0
ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
THE T WORD
Ohio State's best individual effort of 2017 was erased by an officiating error.
When you win the conference, sweep the division, dance in Ann Arbor, hand Wisconsin its only L of the season in Indy and then suffocate the Pac 12 champions in the ̶R̶o̶s̶e̶ Cotton Bowl, the highlights are bound to be plentiful. But in 2017 there was one perfect play that stood above all of the great ones in terms of individual prowess, execution, broadcast quality and outcome. And it didn't count.
It took place during the Maryland game when Denzel Ward separated Taivon Jacobs from the ball that had been in his possession. He snatched it off the turf and galloped toward the end zone; a forced turnover, recovery and touchdown, courtesy of one player.
If football had an unassisted triple play, this would be it. As a bonus, Ward was graced with the Gus Johnson Experience™ for his efforts:
Lost in the officiating larceny and Johnson's enthusiastic barbecue inquiry were color analyst Joel Klatt's perfect comments around the targeting rule, which has been a well-intentioned but severely flawed policy since its inception:
[KLATT] The word "incidental" is not in the rule book...I think that on this play Denzel Ward is trying to lower the strike zone...he did not launch upward, he did not use the crown.
[JOHNSON] That should not be a targeting call.
[KLATT] They've got to figure out this rule...he's done everything they've asked him to do. He put his head to the side, they put his shoulder to the chest...he had no intention of going high...if you want to create a second category of targeting, this at most would be incidental...that should not be an ejection. He did everything he was taught to do to stay in the game and he is still heading to the locker room.
The replay booth disagreed with Klatt and Johnson, as well as every sober, drunk, living or dead person who saw the play from every possible angle and speed. Two days later the Big Ten, which doesn't apologize for anything, sheepishly apologized for using its replay assets to be so stupid. Guys. You literally had one job.
Ohio State didn't need Ward to beat the crap out of Maryland, nor did it need Damon Arnette who was ejected later in the game for precisely the type of hit every level of football is trying to eradicate to preserve both the game and its participants. The Buckeyes didn't need Arnette during the 1st half of the Nebraska game a week later either, a 35-0 30-minute laugher which he missed on account of being penalized during the 2nd half the previous week.
But they did need Nick Bosa against the Hawkeyes, and he was ejected with the game tied at 17 and Ohio State forcing a 4th down. They lost their best player, Iowa kept the ball and two hours later the game ended on a 38-7 run for the home team. That single penalty, entirely deserved, was the Jenga block that brought Ohio State's playoff hopes crashing down.
Targeting should be uncontroversial but for the humans who interpret its definition. Helmet-to-helmet, launching, defenselessness - we have the technology and we don't even need it. If you have football eyes it's quite easy to delineate the clean and currently-legal hits from ones that are illegal or unnecessarily violent. As the definitions evolve, those eyes will adjust. Ward was seemingly penalized because of the physics involved with Jacobs pinwheeling, which is not included anywhere in the definition of targeting.
But there are two main issues that are not going to go away. One is that holding, pass interference and illegal motion weren't installed - with great urgency - into football to reduce head trauma the way targeting was. It is tone deaf to be dismissive to the most important adjustment the sport has made for its survival since Teddy Roosevelt saved it from a different type of violence a century ago.
Entire article: https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2018/07/94710/the-t-word
Ohio State's best individual effort of 2017 was erased by an officiating error.
When you win the conference, sweep the division, dance in Ann Arbor, hand Wisconsin its only L of the season in Indy and then suffocate the Pac 12 champions in the ̶R̶o̶s̶e̶ Cotton Bowl, the highlights are bound to be plentiful. But in 2017 there was one perfect play that stood above all of the great ones in terms of individual prowess, execution, broadcast quality and outcome. And it didn't count.
It took place during the Maryland game when Denzel Ward separated Taivon Jacobs from the ball that had been in his possession. He snatched it off the turf and galloped toward the end zone; a forced turnover, recovery and touchdown, courtesy of one player.
If football had an unassisted triple play, this would be it. As a bonus, Ward was graced with the Gus Johnson Experience™ for his efforts:
Lost in the officiating larceny and Johnson's enthusiastic barbecue inquiry were color analyst Joel Klatt's perfect comments around the targeting rule, which has been a well-intentioned but severely flawed policy since its inception:
[KLATT] The word "incidental" is not in the rule book...I think that on this play Denzel Ward is trying to lower the strike zone...he did not launch upward, he did not use the crown.
[JOHNSON] That should not be a targeting call.
[KLATT] They've got to figure out this rule...he's done everything they've asked him to do. He put his head to the side, they put his shoulder to the chest...he had no intention of going high...if you want to create a second category of targeting, this at most would be incidental...that should not be an ejection. He did everything he was taught to do to stay in the game and he is still heading to the locker room.
The replay booth disagreed with Klatt and Johnson, as well as every sober, drunk, living or dead person who saw the play from every possible angle and speed. Two days later the Big Ten, which doesn't apologize for anything, sheepishly apologized for using its replay assets to be so stupid. Guys. You literally had one job.
Ohio State didn't need Ward to beat the crap out of Maryland, nor did it need Damon Arnette who was ejected later in the game for precisely the type of hit every level of football is trying to eradicate to preserve both the game and its participants. The Buckeyes didn't need Arnette during the 1st half of the Nebraska game a week later either, a 35-0 30-minute laugher which he missed on account of being penalized during the 2nd half the previous week.
But they did need Nick Bosa against the Hawkeyes, and he was ejected with the game tied at 17 and Ohio State forcing a 4th down. They lost their best player, Iowa kept the ball and two hours later the game ended on a 38-7 run for the home team. That single penalty, entirely deserved, was the Jenga block that brought Ohio State's playoff hopes crashing down.
Targeting should be uncontroversial but for the humans who interpret its definition. Helmet-to-helmet, launching, defenselessness - we have the technology and we don't even need it. If you have football eyes it's quite easy to delineate the clean and currently-legal hits from ones that are illegal or unnecessarily violent. As the definitions evolve, those eyes will adjust. Ward was seemingly penalized because of the physics involved with Jacobs pinwheeling, which is not included anywhere in the definition of targeting.
But there are two main issues that are not going to go away. One is that holding, pass interference and illegal motion weren't installed - with great urgency - into football to reduce head trauma the way targeting was. It is tone deaf to be dismissive to the most important adjustment the sport has made for its survival since Teddy Roosevelt saved it from a different type of violence a century ago.
Entire article: https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2018/07/94710/the-t-word
Upvote
0
Nutriaitch
Retired Super Hero
this was called targeting. 15 yard penalty, ejected from game, suspended for first half of next game.
and our defensive MVP will now have to miss the first half of Bama game.
this was called unsportsmanlike conduct. 15 yards.
no ejection, no suspension
and our defensive MVP will now have to miss the first half of Bama game.
this was called unsportsmanlike conduct. 15 yards.
no ejection, no suspension
Upvote
0
You have to realize by now that SEC and NFL share the same approach to officiating.
Saban = Belichick
Saban = Belichick
Upvote
0
ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
FBS coaches support splitting targeting rule into two categories
College football coaches want to see the targeting rule split into two categories that would determine whether certain hits delivered with the crown of the helmet carry malicious intent.
Todd Berry, the executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, said Wednesday that the FBS coaches in their annual meeting unanimously supported a model that would assign Targeting 1 or Targeting 2 to a player who makes forcible contact with the crown of his helmet. Targeting 1 fouls would result in a 15-yard penalty but no ejection or suspension. Targeting 2 fouls would result in an automatic ejection and potential suspension.
The current rule states any targeting foul results in a player being automatically ejected and, if the foul occurred in the second half of a game, suspended for the first half of the next contest. Every potential targeting rule is reviewed by replay officials, and the reply booth can initiate a targeting review if it isn't called on the field.
Berry referred to flagrant fouls in basketball, where fouls are split into Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2, as a potential model for college football's targeting rule.
"Targeting 1 would carry a 15-yard penalty, meaning that there was no malicious intent here," Berry said. "We recognize this was not something where they're trying to hurt or maim someone else. Targeting 2 would be that of malicious intent, the one we're all trying to get rid of. And, to further that, our coaches have suggested if you have multiple Targeting 2 penalties over the course of the year, we would like to see that individual be even more severely punished than a one-game suspension. We need to eliminate those people from the game if we can't eliminate the act."
Berry will discuss the coaches' position at the NCAA convention later this month in Orlando, Florida. His hope is to gain support for a proposed rule change -- one of the FBS conferences would have to submit a proposal -- and get it on the legislative agenda by October. The earliest a change could happen would be the 2020 college football season.
Entire article: http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...want-targeting-penalties-split-two-categories
College football coaches want to see the targeting rule split into two categories that would determine whether certain hits delivered with the crown of the helmet carry malicious intent.
Todd Berry, the executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, said Wednesday that the FBS coaches in their annual meeting unanimously supported a model that would assign Targeting 1 or Targeting 2 to a player who makes forcible contact with the crown of his helmet. Targeting 1 fouls would result in a 15-yard penalty but no ejection or suspension. Targeting 2 fouls would result in an automatic ejection and potential suspension.
The current rule states any targeting foul results in a player being automatically ejected and, if the foul occurred in the second half of a game, suspended for the first half of the next contest. Every potential targeting rule is reviewed by replay officials, and the reply booth can initiate a targeting review if it isn't called on the field.
Berry referred to flagrant fouls in basketball, where fouls are split into Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2, as a potential model for college football's targeting rule.
"Targeting 1 would carry a 15-yard penalty, meaning that there was no malicious intent here," Berry said. "We recognize this was not something where they're trying to hurt or maim someone else. Targeting 2 would be that of malicious intent, the one we're all trying to get rid of. And, to further that, our coaches have suggested if you have multiple Targeting 2 penalties over the course of the year, we would like to see that individual be even more severely punished than a one-game suspension. We need to eliminate those people from the game if we can't eliminate the act."
Berry will discuss the coaches' position at the NCAA convention later this month in Orlando, Florida. His hope is to gain support for a proposed rule change -- one of the FBS conferences would have to submit a proposal -- and get it on the legislative agenda by October. The earliest a change could happen would be the 2020 college football season.
Entire article: http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...want-targeting-penalties-split-two-categories
Upvote
0
To be clear, though, I am in favor of dialing back the targeting rule. The way it's being called, and upheld, these days is ridiculous.
Upvote
0
OhioState001
Tressel Loyalist
I would be satisfied if they removed the automatic ejection. Give the players one warning. The rule is applied way too arbitrarily but so is pretty much every call in football.
I'm not sure I like the booth review without there being a flag on the field. If they are going to do that for targeting then there should also be booth reviews for blatant missed PI, etc... Not sure we want to go down that road though.
I'm not sure I like the booth review without there being a flag on the field. If they are going to do that for targeting then there should also be booth reviews for blatant missed PI, etc... Not sure we want to go down that road though.
Upvote
0