Given the speed of the game, there is bound to be unintentional hits that technically qualify as targeting. But the zero tolerance rule of ejecting a player goes beyond the spirit of the rule which is to protect players. Both players we've had ejected the last two games did not deserve to be taken out of the game in my opinion. I'm OK with giving the penalty and with ejecting flagrant violations at the discretion of the refs. The

i'm for anything that reduces the risk of head injuries in young adults but the targeting rules are illogical and their enforcement is arbitrary.

Getting ridiculous. Almost all the targeting calls I'm seeing are marginal and almost impossible to avoid. Let's hope they change this. Beyond the targeting call last night, the refs were out of control last night - hard to watch and hard for the teams.

I think that a small part of the issue is the term "targeting". It seems that we have moved from intentional targeting to protecting the head and neck of the offensive player regardless of motive. The term should be changed to hitting the head and neck.

Does anyone know if there's a new rule where players disqualified for targeting don't have to leave the field and go back to the locker room? I saw Woodson roaming the sidelines after he was disqualified.

Found this: 2020: Players called for targeting may remain in the team area; previously, they had to stay in the locker room

I think the whole issue of targeting needs to be reviewed. There must be a way to distinguish between something that is clearly tntentional and that which is not. It would be hard but could be fruitful to reduce the amount of time spent endlessly delaying games for the refs to spend many minutes reviewing video to determine if some event is targeting or not. Multiple reviews of what may be targeting during a game is slowing down the games too much.

Yes, it needs reform. Why not do what the NBA does? Watch the replay and assess if it was "flagrant" or not.

LarsBear74 said:

---

Yes, it needs reform. Why not do what the NBA does? Watch the replay and assess if it was "flagrant" or not.

---

This makes sense to me. The Skov-on-Goff type of crown hit is flagrant in anyone's book, and merits a PF plus an ejection. But most run-of-play hits to the head/neck are just a defender trying not to miss a tackle at game speed, and aren't intentional. A 15y PF is enough deterrence for coaches to teach their players to try to avoid using the crown or contacting head/neck of a defenseless player. Maybe an ejection would be warranted for a second targeting PF in the same game.

The only issue with discretion is the Scumbag Scov hit, and last night's game.

Refs are not magical. In college they range from good to horrendous. Last night they called every minor thing, 30 times. Against furd they saw nothing...

The ejection vs Auburn was meh. But I'm ok with it.

But San Diego was a players turning their back to limit contact. They were not trying to hit a player hard, let alone hit their head. That shouldn't be a penalty at all. No reform, just if the head makes contact with a plyers back, no targeting.

Also, there are far too few offensive players being called when lowering their head. If a ball carrier lowers his head into contact, he should be ejected. If both do, double ejection.

There are three levels of targeting:

1) Intent to hurt and/or do maximum damage: see skov on goff.

2) Reckless abandon where you do something known to be high risk of causing serious injury. I.e. leading with the crown of your helmet when tackling in general.

3) Incidental contact where you are trying to make a tackle and incidental contact occurs, such as you lead with your shoulder and momentum takes you through to the head some, or the player you are tackling lowers their head at the last second.

Each of these is different and should have a different level of penalty associated. Basketballs "common foul / flagrant / flagrant 2" definitely comes to mind.

I get the idea that you want to eliminate all hits to the head and neck area and you want the players to be cognizant of it on every tackle. You'd rather have them thinking about it now than after they paralyze someone. But football is a violent contact sport and some levels of reason need to be applied.

IMHO the most difficult calls to make (as well as the hardest for the players) is instances (often slants/crossing routes) where we have the offensive player going one way and the defender going another.

It would be a radical change (but perhaps worth experimenting) but what if you provided that one such routes (lets say forward passes between the hash marks) that if the offensive player has not "made a football move" (which we could define as 2 steps) then he can be ruled down with a two hand touch? As of now I completely get how a defender, closing fast on a bang bang play has a hard time engaging in pure heads up tackle (or a rugby style wrap) because often that would lead HIM to be at a higher risk for the offensive player to come down with the ball and lower HIS shoulder to try to avoid the tackle. I mean I guess you could TRY to coach them to go lower but if bioth players do that then we are back to a helmet on helmet hit.

socaltownie said:

---

IMHO the most difficult calls to make (as well as the hardest for the players) is instances (often slants/crossing routes) where we have the offensive player going one way and the defender going another.

It would be a radical change (but perhaps worth experimenting) but what if you provided that one such routes (lets say forward passes between the hash marks) that if the offensive player has not "made a football move" (which we could define as 2 steps) then he can be ruled down with a two hand touch? As of now I completely get how a defender, closing fast on a bang bang play has a hard time engaging in pure heads up tackle (or a rugby style wrap) because often that would lead HIM to be at a higher risk for the offensive player to come down with the ball and lower HIS shoulder to try to avoid the tackle. I mean I guess you could TRY to coach them to go lower but if bioth players do that then we are back to a helmet on helmet hit.

---

That's basically what it's going to take to even things out, but even then, if they end up making that football move and your tag is an ineffective tackle, now you're hosed and hated.

socaltownie said:

---

IMHO the most difficult calls to make (as well as the hardest for the players) is instances (often slants/crossing routes) where we have the offensive player going one way and the defender going another.

It would be a radical change (but perhaps worth experimenting) but what if you provided that one such routes (lets say forward passes between the hash marks) that if the offensive player has not "made a football move" (which we could define as 2 steps) then he can be ruled down with a two hand touch? As of now I completely get how a defender, closing fast on a bang bang play has a hard time engaging in pure heads up tackle (or a rugby style wrap) because often that would lead HIM to be at a higher risk for the offensive player to come down with the ball and lower HIS shoulder to try to avoid the tackle. I mean I guess you could TRY to coach them to go lower but if bioth players do that then we are back to a helmet on helmet hit.

---

If you want really radical change just outlaw helmets altogether!
You're unlikely to smack into someone head first with only your skull protecting your brain instead of a helmet.
Okay, maybe allow soft leather helmets ala rugby. I don't know. Are there lots of head and neck injuries in rugby?

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

LarsBear74 said:

---

Yes, it needs reform. Why not do what the NBA does? Watch the replay and assess if it was "flagrant" or not.

---

This makes sense to me. The Skov-on-Goff type of crown hit is flagrant in anyone's book, and merits a PF plus an ejection. But most run-of-play hits to the head/neck are just a defender trying not to miss a tackle at game speed, and aren't intentional. A 15y PF is enough deterrence for coaches to teach their players to try to avoid using the crown or contacting head/neck of a defenseless player. Maybe an ejection would be warranted for a second targeting PF in the same game.

---

Agreed, first blow to the head or neck should be a 15 yard personal foul penalty on the defensive player. Second such play in the same game should be 15 yards plus an ejection.

Similar to a yellow card in soccer, with the second yellow card resulting in the player being ejected. Also similarly, officials should have discretion to eject the player after the first head hit if it is deemed outrageous and intentional (like a red card in soccer).