Someone please explain targeting...
- Thread starter troyisu
- Start date
That was ********. There was contact to the helmet, but it was a grazing and incidental by the shoulder and side of the tackler's helmet. And you can see in the view from behind the UCLA player that he actually braces and lowers his head a bit just before impact.
I hate Nebraska as much as anyone, but that kid should not have been ejected.
I hate Nebraska as much as anyone, but that kid should not have been ejected.
I have no explanation. Targeting is the biggest BS penalty there is. That tackle by the Nebraska guy was a text book tackle - hit chest to chest, wrapped up and took the guy down. I am also sick of "defenseless player" nonesense, you are on a football field if you are "defenseless" you should go play a non-contact sport.
FYI I am cheering for UCLA but the Nebraska guy got jobbed.
FYI I am cheering for UCLA but the Nebraska guy got jobbed.
That was the worst thing I have seen in a while. Definately not tagreting... idk, maybe the ref threw the flag because of the sound the hit made and thought it had to be something illegal in the hit to make it sound like that..... Or maybe it was because Gerry got thrown out the last game they played for targeting and the referee knew this and had some bias against him.
Same dude got jobbed in the game against Iowa, too.
That was a terrible call in tonight's game. He was tackling with his head up, and had turned his head away from the helmet to helmet contact. I'm not sure how you square up and tackle a guy much better than he did.
That was a terrible call in tonight's game. He was tackling with his head up, and had turned his head away from the helmet to helmet contact. I'm not sure how you square up and tackle a guy much better than he did.
I agree. That was how you teach tackling. Kept his head up.
I saw him talking to the UCLA coach and I was wondering, could UCLA have declined the penalty if they also felt it was BS? With only seconds left in the half it's not like they were doing anything anyway.
I saw him talking to the UCLA coach and I was wondering, could UCLA have declined the penalty if they also felt it was BS? With only seconds left in the half it's not like they were doing anything anyway.
Agreed- the only way you are defenseless is if you are out there without any pads or helmet
The idea behind the targeting penalty is fine. The execution needs a lot of work, though.
Nebraska got screwed on that call, but won in spite of it. Embarrassing loss for UCLA and the Pacific 12. No fluke. Nebraska won that game fair and square.
The targeting rule is so vague in its description, I'm not sure anyone can interpret it the same way. If the tackle by the Nebraska player wasn't a textbook tackle, then I don't know what one is.
That's a perfect tackle, sees his target, wraps up, and drives to the ground. Might as well start playing flag football if that's a targeting penalty.
