|
Replies: 16
| visibility 106
|
Dynasty Maker [3350]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Should DB Rules Be Changed?
Jan 1, 2019, 2:49 PM
|
|
They are kicked out of the game even if they don't intend to target. They are often injured because of the way receivers and runners can hit them with THEIR helmets. We are going to run out of DBs if this keeps up.
|
|
|
|
 |
Top TigerNet [30462]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 22469
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Should DB Rules Be Changed?
Jan 1, 2019, 2:54 PM
|
|
They also very rarely call a face mask penalty on an offensive player. I saw it last night for the first time this year. A wide receiver caught a pass and used the opponents face mask to push him down with a stiff arm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7153]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Should DB Rules Be Changed?
Jan 1, 2019, 4:10 PM
|
|
I see your point, but then again many times the DB is at fault for poor fundamentals. They go for a big crushing hit, instead a a sure tackle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3350]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Should DB Rules Be Changed?
Jan 1, 2019, 10:15 PM
|
|
No other position has this many players kicked out of games. I mean it's just getting to be ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3350]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Should DB Rules Be Changed?
Jan 2, 2019, 12:10 AM
|
|
Here we go again with these rinky dink calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2867]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: Should DB Rules Be Changed?
Jan 2, 2019, 3:57 PM
[ in reply to Re: Should DB Rules Be Changed? ] |
|
Sometimes the big crushing hit separates the ball from the receiver. The situation comes and goes in a split second.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8918]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 11807
Joined: 2011
|
Maybe DBs should learn rules.
Jan 2, 2019, 12:16 AM
|
|
Compare this:
A player targets a player with helmet and is disqualified for half a game.
A player unintentionally drinks or eats some unknown substance and has miniscule amount of a banned substance, and gets disqualified for 1 year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3350]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Apples and Oranges
Jan 2, 2019, 7:28 AM
|
|
When a player is ejected from the game and shamefully escorted from the field in almost every game, something is wrong with the rule. The DB doesn't have to intend to use his helmet to the offensive player's head to be ejected. The ball carrier can be the one who moves into the helmet to helmet contact or it can just accidentally happen. I just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17165]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 17008
Joined: 2004
|
Re: Apples and Oranges
Jan 2, 2019, 7:43 AM
|
|
They are trying to change the culture. When I played coaches taught "wrapping up" a player instead of trying to knock him down. We were also taught "see your target" ie plant your face mask in his chest then wrap up. Targeting is when you hit with the crown of your helmet.
People trying to make ESPN hightlight reel is the problem just like in basketball the only highlights you see are 3 point shots or slam dunks, Its the 10 footer that wins games and that is not on anyone's highlights. If football its the sure tackling that wins games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5074]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Apples and Oranges
Jan 2, 2019, 12:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: Apples and Oranges ] |
|
Almost every game?
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/21815187/targeting-calls-set-record-ap-finds-pac-12-sec-had-most
Targeting was called 188 times in 832 games during the regular season which comes out to 22.5% of games even if you assume that all 188 times were from separate games.
From the above link:
-On 152 running or passing plays when targeting occurred, 46 calls were against safeties, 43 against defensive linemen, 33 against linebackers and 20 against cornerbacks.
-Of the 176 verified calls, 113 occurred on pass plays, 39 on runs, 21 on kickoffs or punts and one each on a point-after touchdown, two-point conversion try and field goal attempt.
Based on the numbers, around 35% of targeting calls were against secondary players this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3350]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Apples and Oranges
Jan 2, 2019, 3:03 PM
|
|
Clemson2003, thanks for the data. Do you know how many were called and overturned on replay?
Back to the discussion, this penalty for someone who didn't intend to spear as it used to be known as and rarely called is way too severe. It's like law enforcement is told to cuff him, embarrass the player in front of the fans and escort him away from the bench area? Why is that necessary? It is just part of the visual humiliation of the player. I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 16363
Joined: 1998
|
Rules are fine ... just inconsistently enforced.
Jan 2, 2019, 11:56 AM
|
|
The way Bama was allowed to assault Deshaun Watson was criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [263]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
My Solution
Jan 2, 2019, 12:19 PM
|
|
There should be two levels of targeting:
(1) regular targeting - results in 15 yard penalty, no ejection but if you get another regular targeting, you are ejected (think of it as a yellow card in soccer; two yellows = red card). This would make sure the DB doesn't make another similar mistake or else they'll be ejected.
(2) flagrant targeting - results in 15 yard penalty and ejection...which is the same rule we currently have, without the flagrant title.
It's kind of like flagrant "1" and "2" in basketball.
The tricky part is where do they draw the line when it comes to interpretation of intent, severity, etc. I'd imagine the line might get blurred depending on the crew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5643]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Yes, its getting ridiculous and not good for the game.
Jan 2, 2019, 12:29 PM
|
|
There should be two penalties...
15 yd for "incidental" contact with head/neck area
15yd+ejection for willful contact.
Refs are required to make judgment calls all the time, so should not be a big deal. Have it confirmed with replay.
Also, needs to be called consistently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3350]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Yes, its getting ridiculous and not good for the game.
Jan 2, 2019, 3:06 PM
|
|
Has anyone ever seen a running back called for lowering his helmet into the defensive player? I assure you it happens often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [339]
TigerPulse: 90%
15
|
Headhunting should be an ejection
Jan 2, 2019, 3:16 PM
|
|
But asking a DB to predict in real-time where a ball-carrier's helmet is going to be in the next split second during a play, and then ejecting him when he predicts incorrectly, is stupid.
The current application of the Targeting rule is basically what I described above. In a dynamic situation where multiple people are interacting with the "Targeted" player, even if a DB applies correct fundamentals, breaks down and keeps his face into the target, there is a non-zero chance that the ballcarrier will be hit from another angle or otherwise have his own helmet/neck area moved into the DB's helmet's path, when the DB was correctly and legally attempting to make a clean tackle, and the defensive player will be ejected for failing to correctly guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3350]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Headhunting should be an ejection
Jan 2, 2019, 3:55 PM
|
|
What about an offensive player being spun around into a defensive player? The way the rules read the defensive player is gone now, no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 106
|
|
|
50
