Over the past few years we have all been made aware of the wonderful rule about targeting and leading with the crown of your helmet. At some point "my team" has been on defense and a penalty was thrown where I did not feel it was necessary and thought the game was getting "soft". On the other side, "my team" has also been moving the ball down the field and a careless defender has struck the ball carrier with thier helmet and I've come unglued because of the carelessness the defender had for my offensive players safety. When this rule first came out we were all confused about the wording and what actually constitutes a penalty. As seasons have gone on and player safety has gotten better we are starting to grasp a better understanding on what "out of control" means when it comes to helmet to helmet contact.

But question still remain. Why isn't the offense being called for lowering their head to make contact with a defender and why haven't we gotten better at knowing what out of control looks like?

If we are all talking about player safety and why that's so important to the NCAA and NFL, should it matter if helmet to helmet contact is initiated by the offense rather than a defender? As a former offensive player myself I fully understand the idea of "low man wins" and getting under the opposition. Naturally if I'm under the opposition i have a higher success rate. Plus it's natural for a ball carrier to duck or curl up on impact when impact is immanent. I also completely understand the defensive side of attacking the ball carrier and committing to a tackle with your should and having the ball carrier duck their head. Penalty on the defense!!!!! You cant do that!!!! How dare that defender be so malicious!!! Its hard for these defenders to run full speed, break down, make a tackle against someone just as fast and athletic with no ill intent or malice to hit someone in the head. But they DO IT!!! They are great tacklers, they are very skilled players! You know, I know, Refs know when you see someone out of control. When you see someone launch or really use their helmet as a weapon rather than a safety tool. Lets not call this like we are in little league. Its a contact sport, you're going to make things safer for all players and not one athlete is going to argue with that. But this is football, it will always be a sport with collisions lets just use common sense when it comes to true player safety.

Boone Stutz
A&M '05

TL;DR?

Why don't they call targeting on offensive players that lower their head? They should.

It's all horse**** and the rules should be rolled back to the pre-targeting era.

AggieChemist said:

---

It's all horse**** and the rules should be rolled back to the pre-targeting era.

---

Totally agree. I think we're +/- 10 years away from all this going to permanent 7 on 7.

it's a poorly written rule poorly enforced.

Boooooooooooooone!

The targeting rule has the same purpose as your airplane seat cushion serving as a floatation device...to make us all feel better. Sure, some head injuries come from a safety blowing up a receiver, but nobody is addressing the biggest issue. Think about what linemen go through every single play; it's a brain jarring hit to the head every single play for the entire game. I'm not a doctor, but I'm certain that the constant day in day out jarring of the brain is far more harmful than a highlight reel hit that comes maybe once a game.

There are two types of targeting. The head hunter type and the striking with the crown of the helmet type.
The head hunter type is pretty obvious. They are trying to get that type of hit out of the game because of concussions and to try to head off efforts to litigate the game out of existence.
The second type is to protect the person striking with the crown of the helmet. They are the ones that will more than like break their neck. And yes, they (NCAA) do call this one on running backs.


You will see even more of those calls this year. If it looks bad they will throw the flag and let replay sort it out.

bgrimm05 said:

---

Boooooooooooooone!

---

Hard to tell if this is a stretched out boone or bone. Knowing you, it's the latter...

Targeting rule is awful. Worst thing about it is we have to listen to every commentator talk about how great the rule is every single game.

woods&water said:

---

Over the past few years we have all been made aware of the wonderful rule about targeting and leading with the crown of your helmet. At some point "my team" has been on defense and a penalty was thrown where I did not feel it was necessary and thought the game was getting "soft". On the other side, "my team" has also been moving the ball down the field and a careless defender has struck the ball carrier with thier helmet and I've come unglued because of the carelessness the defender had for my offensive players safety. When this rule first came out we were all confused about the wording and what actually constitutes a penalty. As seasons have gone on and player safety has gotten better we are starting to grasp a better understanding on what "out of control" means when it comes to helmet to helmet contact.

But question still remain. Why isn't the offense being called for lowering their head to make contact with a defender and why haven't we gotten better at knowing what out of control looks like?

If we are all talking about player safety and why that's so important to the NCAA and NFL, should it matter if helmet to helmet contact is initiated by the offense rather than a defender? As a former offensive player myself I fully understand the idea of "low man wins" and getting under the opposition. Naturally if I'm under the opposition i have a higher success rate. Plus it's natural for a ball carrier to duck or curl up on impact when impact is immanent. I also completely understand the defensive side of attacking the ball carrier and committing to a tackle with your should and having the ball carrier duck their head. Penalty on the defense!!!!! You cant do that!!!! How dare that defender be so malicious!!! Its hard for these defenders to run full speed, break down, make a tackle against someone just as fast and athletic with no ill intent or malice to hit someone in the head. But they DO IT!!! They are great tacklers, they are very skilled players! You know, I know, Refs know when you see someone out of control. When you see someone launch or really use their helmet as a weapon rather than a safety tool. Lets not call this like we are in little league. Its a contact sport, you're going to make things safer for all players and not one athlete is going to argue with that. But this is football, it will always be a sport with collisions lets just use common sense when it comes to true player safety.

Boone Stutz
A&M '05

---

Hey man, my boy used to love watching you play ( he was 7 or 8 at the time) You were his favorite player. Hope you are doing well and Gig 'Em

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

bgrimm05 said:

---

Boooooooooooooone!

---

Hard to tell if this is a stretched out boone or bone. Knowing you, it's the latter...

---

this is sad

They do call it on offense on occasion - just ask RSJ.

And "targeting" is really a penalty for a hit that looks like it his too hard, nothing more, nothing less. It is the most inconsistently called penalty in the game. We literally had a hit on one of our players a few years back by Alabama where a CHIP of the helmet of the Alabama linebacker was plain as day on the actual crown of his helmet and no penalty was called. The overwhelming majority of the targeting penalties are actually good helmet placement, but lack of wrapping up and [reference back to my first sentence] the appearance of needing a flag are what draws the flag.

The worst part of the entire system is the fact that the NCAA has hired Stevie Wonder as the review official, because only somebody that is absolutely blind would uphold 99% of the penalties. And they do.

I am fine with targeting being a penalty. BUT if the defender has begun his tackle and the ball carrier ducks his head into the path of the defender's head, it should be a no-call.

Mule_lx said:

---

I am fine with targeting being a penalty. BUT if the defender has begun his tackle and the ball carrier ducks his head into the path of the defender's head, it should be a no-call.

---

Also if the defender is playing the ball and there is "targeting" type contact. Wave it off.

First off it should be stated that little scientific study has been done regarding head contact in sports and its affects on the brain. They just don't know. We all can agree that concussions are not a good thing and certainly have short term ill affects on health. Everything reasonable should be done to prevent them. The problem with rule and those making the rules is they don't know exactly what the goals are because they don't know what if anything they are to be protecting against and are too concerned with public perception.

IMO, the rule is way too complicated, seeks to remove too much judgement from on field officials and too harshly penalizes a player trying to make an honest play. A player should be ejected for a flagrant head to head. It's obvious what that is 99% of the time. The head and shoulders follow the hands and if a player makes contact with another player's head and neck region and they clearly are attempting to make a football play I don't think that should be a penalty. The official should make a judgment call whether its targeting of the head or if the player is making a play.

At the very least, do not eject the player. Put him in a penalty box or some such for a certain number of downs/ time frame during the game. You get yardage and loss of player.

It's way too subjective and inconsistently enforced!

Simple solution - make them play w/out helmets or any pads for that matter. I guarantee leading w/ the head will stop.

AggieChemist said:

---

It's all horse**** and the rules should be rolled back to the pre-targeting era.

---

I think you mean that crap is all bull crap.

Boone!

We used to work together in oilfield at Stallion. I haven't golfed in San Antonio since we did back then. Hope all is going great with you in life.

As far as targeting, while I've never played the game, as a spectator I've kind of accepted the disposition that it will be a subjective call by the ref, and in a number of cases they will flag a play unnecessarily as targeting even if it was just a physical play by a defender. Yes, this sucks for the flow and excitement of the game, and I understand that the safety and long term health of the players must be considered. I just chalk it up to that is what is becoming of football in the modern era. It is still a physical game, there is just a gray area with much erring on the side of caution these days.

Cassius said:

---

At the very least, do not eject the player. Put him in a penalty box or some such for a certain number of downs/ time frame during the game. You get yardage and loss of player.

It's way too subjective and inconsistently enforced!

---

This has been my biggest complaint.

It shouldn't lead to ejection. When the offensive player puts his own head in the strike zone, and a defender's helmet makes contact with the other guys helmet, it's the OP fault, and the defender should not be ejected.

There is a difference between head hunting and tackling, and the rule enforcement needs to recognize it.

Donovan Wilson has been ejected for four games because this this thread was started.

gggmann said:

---

Simple solution - make them play w/out helmets or any pads for that matter. I guarantee leading w/ the head will stop.

---

Yes, it was much better when more people were dying from playing football.

Head injuries aren't just from people leading with their helmet. They are used to be a lot from landing on your head, getting kicked in the head (including while trying to tackle someone), or getting clubbed in the head.

In 1905, when football was practically closer to rugby than what it is now, 18 people died from football. Now, guys are more likely to die from heatstroke or cardiac arrest than from actual contact.

This is from 1905:

I would like a lot more research into why some people suffering multiple concussions (airman, Steve young, and more) seem to be totally fine while others suffer from significant problems. Might it not be because of what you are doing to/putting into your body while recovering? Seems like the guys suffering most from TBI are also the guys who were pretty big on the party scene and might not have been completely sober, getting adequate rest/sleep, etc. I firmly believe the brain is adaptable enough to bounce back, when it is treated properly. Maybe if more guys treated concussions like broken bones and torn ligaments, there would be less long term ramifications.

I was wondering if this has ever been suggested.
If the "targeting" contact is so dangerous, shouldn't the receiving player
have to go through concussion protocol before playing another down?

It's an attempt to point the liability finger away from the NCAA and its member institutions.