ADVERTISEMENT

Yahoo Sports Slams "Targeting" Call

NotInRHouse

NotInRHouse

Legend
Oct 17, 2007
68,731
46,566
113
But that’s also the problem with the way the targeting rule is enforced. We all understand that the rule is in place to try to make football safer. But it’s also true to note that hits like Powell made against Carter happen very frequently during football games and are not flagged. Some more judiciousness from officiating crews — especially on big plays like this — is needed for the sake of consistency."

sports.yahoo.com

Rutgers' Tyreem Powell ejected after controversial targeting call on a fourth-down stop

Powell stopped Michigan State RB Nate Carter in the backfield but apparently didn't tackle correctly.
sports.yahoo.com sports.yahoo.com

I would love GS to cop the fine and just slam these clown officials. It really does seem like it's getting worse and worse with each game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU MAN, KevH, WhichReligionIsRight and 9 others
I said in another thread but this is the worst call I've seen in college lately. To review and still call it is unbelievable. The rule sucks as well. He was in perfect form and the RB dropped last second which means there's nothing he could do there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnamur, TRU2RU, pele78 and 1 other person
Extra Point said:
It was a very iffy call. Technically it barely met the definition but nobody would have questioned it if it was not called. The announcers didn't think it was targeting.
Click to expand...
But the Fox official guy said it was definitely targeting. He did lead with the top of his helmet. Clear as day.
 
Zak57 said:
I said in another thread but this is the worst call I've seen in college lately. To review and still call it is unbelievable. The rule sucks as well. He was in perfect form and the RB dropped last second which means there's nothing he could do there.
Click to expand...
I really question if these rules were written by guys who ever played the game. It's 4th and 1, Powell is running full speed through a gap and bang there's the rb .... sorry your head is 1 inch in the wrong spot.. see you next week/you are tossed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NBHPRU, TRU2RU, NY AGENTMAN and 5 others
RuSnp said:
I really question if these rules were written by guys who ever played the game. It's 4th and 1, Powell is running full speed through a gap and bang there's the rb .... sorry your head is 1 inch in the wrong spot.. see you next week/you are tossed?
Click to expand...
This

The rule was designed to stop guys from launching and hitting with the top of their helmet and "blowing up" runners or receivers coming over the middle. This was simply a football tackle that broke the rules on a technicality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU MAN, TRU2RU, Section124 and 6 others
The problem is the last second movement of the guy with the ball. Anyone who has played this game knows that in real time, things happen quickly.
I thought it was a bogus call since even though his helmet was down, the runner was high and had he stayed high the tackle would have been around his waist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRU2RU, RUfinally2008, RW90 and 2 others
RUich said:
The problem is the last second movement of the guy with the ball. Anyone who has played this game knows that in real time, things happen quickly.
I thought it was a bogus call since even though his helmet was down, the runner was high and had he stayed high the tackle would have been around his waist.
Click to expand...
Don't blame it on the runner! Read the damn rule. You can't lower your helmet and hit the runner with the crown (top) of your helmet into his helmet.
 
RUich said:
The problem is the last second movement of the guy with the ball. Anyone who has played this game knows that in real time, things happen quickly.
I thought it was a bogus call since even though his helmet was down, the runner was high and had he stayed high the tackle would have been around his waist.
Click to expand...
That’s how I saw it too. But my question is: does the ref have any wiggle room for interpretation on this?
 
When Dick Butkus passed someone commented that every one of his tackles would have been illegal in today's game. I know what they're trying to do with the new rule, but IMO Powell's hit wasn't what they were aiming for.
On the other hand, the one in a previous RU game where they threw the flag for the hit on GW and then picked it back up was more in line with what they're trying to discourage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NBHPRU, TRU2RU, NotInRHouse and 5 others
WhiteBus said:
But the Fox official guy said it was definitely targeting. He did lead with the top of his helmet. Clear as day.
Click to expand...
100%

how anyone could argue otherwise is beyond me

Of all the schools where you would think the kids would see what they hit; it'd be Rutgers
 
Kbee3 said:
On the other hand, the one in a previous RU game where they threw the flag for the hit on GW and then picked it back up was more in line with what they're trying to discourage.
Click to expand...

RU player: our QB (in a defenseless position and clearly going out of bounds) gets hit in the back of the head in a hit that the defender could easily have avoided. Flag thrown. Then subsequently picked up?!

MSU player: their running back, running straight up the middle gets hit straight up. Our defender is tackling him in the mid section, the RB lowers his head at the last split second. No flag thrown. Commentators show it over and over again calling it a great hit. Come back from commercial time out and they call it targeting after the fact

What did I miss ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegock, LETSGORU91, TRU2RU and 8 others
Let's ask this- has anyone ever seen it called as a RB head down to run into the middle of the lines and met in the middle by a defender on a 3rd or 4th and 1?
Never- and just no way the defender could do a thing about it- was a football play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU MAN, cRURah, JoeRU0304 and 11 others
RedTeam1994 said:
RU player: our QB (in a defenseless position) gets hit in the back of the head in a hit that the defender could easily have avoided. Flag thrown. Then subsequently picked up?!

MSU player: their running back, running straight up the middle gets hit straight up. Our defender is tackling him in the mid section, the RB lowers his head at the last split second. No flag thrown. Commentators show it over and over again calling it a great hit. Come back from commercial time out and they call it targeting after the fact

What did I miss ?
Click to expand...
Bingo
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRU2RU, RUfinally2008, yesrutgers01 and 1 other person
Zak57 said:
You would argue this. The rule is horrible. It was a perfect form tackle.
Click to expand...
No it was an exciting tackle. It was targeting. Targeting does NOT mean intentional. He lowered his head and hit the runner in the head with the crown of his helmet. It's a very simple rule.
I'm shocked that people that call themselves real Rutgers fans argue that this rule is stupid. It's designed to actually protect the tackler. Amazes me "so called" Rutgers fans can't figure that out.
 
WhiteBus said:
No it was an exciting tackle. It was targeting. Targeting does NOT mean intentional. He lowered his head and hit the runner in the head with the crown of his helmet. It's a very simple rule.
I'm shocked that people that call themselves real Rutgers fans argue that this rule is stupid. It's designed to actually protect the tackler. Amazes me "so called" Rutgers fans can't figure that out.
Click to expand...
He clearly didn't launch the crown of his helmet into the defenders facemask. He tackled the RB and the helmet contact was inconsequential
 
  • Like
Reactions: NBHPRU, TRU2RU, RUfinally2008 and 3 others
sct1111 said:
He clearly didn't launch the crown of his helmet into the defenders facemask. He tackled the RB and the helmet contact was inconsequential
Click to expand...

There is simply no way anyone could say he launched at the RBs head - he was wrapping him up around the mid section and the RB lowered his helmet instinctively at the very last split second before contact…. ie a play that happens many many many many times during every game with no call ….as it shouldn’t be
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRU2RU, RUfinally2008, Kbee3 and 1 other person
sct1111 said:
He clearly didn't launch the crown of his helmet into the defenders facemask. He tackled the RB and the helmet contact was inconsequential
Click to expand...
Launch is not a requirement!! It's a safety rule! It was targeting by rule. And in the end nothing as Rutgers got the ball back right after. Everyone keeps bringing in other factors which have zero to do with that play. It certainly wasn't inconsequential to the running back. A very cool, exciting play. Was yelling at it was huge. Then you watch the replay and there you go.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RedTeam1994
WhiteBus said:
Launch is not a requirement!! It's a safety rule! It was targeting by rule. And in the end nothing as Rutgers got the ball back right after. Everyone keeps bringing in other factors which have zero to do with that play. It certainly wasn't inconsequential to the running back. A very cool, exciting play. Was yelling at it was huge. Then you watch the replay and there you go.
Click to expand...
We lost our best defensive player due to that call! What do you mean 'in the end nothing' lmao.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thegock, TRU2RU, NotInRHouse and 5 others
If he matches peck to peck, which I know Rutgers teaches, he has no issues.

Can't leave things up to the refs. Kids are coached to do things for a reason. He made an awesome play, but didn't tackle how he's taught too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerseybird and WhiteBus
Dumb it down for me. How exactly was Powell supposed to tackle him? RB was coming full speed. Should Powell move to the side and try to arm tackle. Should he pull the running backs flag? Rule really needs to be looked at. If it is a safety issue why are some called and some not when in all of these cases contact to the head made?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRU2RU, RUfinally2008 and zebnatto
RuBird said:
Dumb it down for me. How exactly was Powell supposed to tackle him? RB was coming full speed. Should Powell move to the side and try to arm tackle. Should he pull the running backs flag? Rule really needs to be looked at. If it is a safety issue why are some called and some not when in all of these cases contact to the head made?
Click to expand...
Head up, not down.
 
RedTeam1994 said:
RU player: our QB (in a defenseless position and clearly going out of bounds) gets hit in the back of the head in a hit that the defender could easily have avoided. Flag thrown. Then subsequently picked up?!

MSU player: their running back, running straight up the middle gets hit straight up. Our defender is tackling him in the mid section, the RB lowers his head at the last split second. No flag thrown. Commentators show it over and over again calling it a great hit. Come back from commercial time out and they call it targeting after the fact

What did I miss ?
Click to expand...
Big Ten is a criminal organization
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuBird
WhiteBus said:
Learn the rule clown. You get caught, your out. Thankfully he walked off the field.
Click to expand...
Learn grammar. It's 'you're out'. For someone who requires everyone to be a stickler and learn rules, you set a poor example.

You must have one of those walrus mustaches, a belly the size of a beach ball, and wear suspenders (that you insist are called braces) to hold up your wranglers.

Go read a book. Might I recommend "Go Dog Go"? You must start somewhere.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: TRU2RU, RUfinally2008, Captain Hogleg and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back