Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No. You need to start taking safety seriously. There were undoubtably people saying the same thing you're saying now when the face mask, and thus the face mask rule, were implemented.
Targeting Rule in college football
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I disagree. The whole idea of the rule is not so much to penalize the teams as it is to change behavior. If players know that they can cost their team a 15 yard penalty and get ejected from the game they will stop hitting opponents in a defenseless position above the numbers which causes the majority of concussions in football. I think the real problem is that this rule is just not explained well. There is to much focus on the "leading with the crown of the helmet" aspect and not enough on "Hitting your opponent above the numbers when they are in a defenseless position" aspect of the rule. They've done a lousy job of communicating the rule and are also going through a learning curve on how to call the play consistently.
To me what is important is that the rule is working. Players behavior is changing and coaches are starting to teach that you can't tackle in this manner. Give the rule a chance and lets ultimately measure it by how it works. That is, does it reduce the number of concussions. From that viewpoint, it appears to be working.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's because you're wrapped up in the game and you're not prioritizing safety. How many horror stories does it have to take of young men suffering permanent brain injury due to these kinds of hits before you come to understand that something has to change. I applaud the NCAA is making some common sense rule changes that are changing behavior and are reducing the number of brain injuries.
Ejecting the player for "leading" is the most important part of the rule. Without it, you're pissing up a rope from a safety standpoint. Teams and players will take a 15 yard penalty knowing you just knocked a star opponent out of the game. Not so when they get ejected for doing that. That's why it's also very fair. I had no problem with Roby getting ejected yesterday as he not only broke the rule, he concussed the other player and knocked him out of the game. What's not fair about that?
You better believe that coaches and players are taking this seriously and how could that be anything but a good thing from a safety standpoint?
Canceled.2014.1
New member
You misunderstand what my complaint is. The way the targeting rule is written, once that flag is thrown, there will either be an ejection or a 15 yard penalty. There is no option for the replay officials to see that there was no targeting and to reverse the ruling.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I agree in that they should eliminate the review on this entirely and let the officials on the field make the call. It undermines the intent of the rule and it makes it difficult for the officials to apply it consistently on the field. There should be no review of a targeting call. If the official makes that call on you on the field than that's it, your ass is out of the game.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
So if wide receivers learn to fall like basketball players, defenders will not dare be close to them? Hogwash!
I do not understand why you see nothing wrong with punishing someone when they did nothing wrong.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I didn't say that. That would be assuming that Football officials are as big as suckers for flopping as FIFA and NBA officials. I don't think that's going to be a problem. As for the later question, I could care less about punishing someone other than it changes behavior. This rule is working extraordinarily well. It's changing behavior and we're seeing less concussions and therefore less brain injuries as a result. By any objective safety measure this rule is a spectacular success. I have no seen hardly any situation where this rule has been misapplied and it already reducing the number of dangerous hits were seeing in the game. This is good!
The difference here is I'm not focused on punishment or whether the punishment is fair or not. Was it fair when I fired a skilled mechanic with 7 years experience in our company for violating permitted confined space entry? I'm sure he thought it was unfair. Was it unfair when I fired an electrician for violating lock out tag out procedures? I'm damned sure he thought it was unfair. Well guess how many times those rules were violated after that? Guess how many injuries related to violating those rules we had after that? I'm damned sure both of those men, damned good men both of them, thought it was damned unfair and that they had extenuating circumstances. I still fired them cause the rule was clearly defined and taught to them, NO SECOND CHANCE! You violate the rule for any reason and YOU'RE FIRED! And they were trained off on those facts. They knew that was the rule and they knew the consequences. I would have been remiss in my responsibility and would probably had been fired myself had I not made that call.
And that's the point here. It's not about what appears to be "fair" on the field of play. It's about doing what needs to be done to reduce the number of concussions and brain injuries that happen in this sport and this rule, as imperfect as it is, is working!! That's what I care about and that's what I'm focused on.
The only questions I need to ask in the grand scheme of things is this. Are the number of concussions and brain injuries being reduced? The answer is a resounding YES! Therefore, it's a good rule.
Could it use some tweeks to make it better. I have no problem with that, as long as they don't undermine the safety gains that have been made.
Last edited:
Canceled.2014.1
New member
The examples you use fit when they actually violated a rule. If there is a hit that fits the Targeting rule, I am all for them throwing the player out.
My complaint is that when the officials review the play and see that there was no targeting, the team will still lose 15 yards.
The skilled mechanic violated the confined spaces rule, so the termination was justified. But if, after writing him up, you found he did NOT violate the confined spaces rule, would you still fire him?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No I wouldn't and I don't have a problem with tweeking the rule so that it isn't mssapplied. To be honest with you...I've seen very little of that. Most people who are complaining haven't read the full rule listed on NCAA.Com website. They're hung up on the "leading with the crown of the head" interpretation and that's not what the rule states.
I have to admit having worked in safety I'm not at all surprised at how unpopular this rule is. It follows the same pattern I've seen throughout my career. People are all for safety until you actually enforce the safety rules. Then they become unpopular real quick. When I was a safety manager I grew accustomed to the fact that I was going to be the most unpopular person in the plant if I did my job right. I wasn't wrong there.
So, I'm not going to base my assessment on this rules popularity. Screw that. I could care less whether fans like the rule or not. I'm going to judge it on if it's working and so far it's worked real well. It's reducing dangerous behavior and it's reduced the number of concussions. What's not to like about that?
Canceled.2014.1
New member
With a decade and a half of being a safety professional, I understand what you are saying about not worrying about the popularity. I never cared whether I was popular at work. If I was disliked for working to keep everyone safe, then so be it.
As I said, the ONLY thing I dislike about the rule is that it cannot be completely overturned.