***** has a proposed fix for regulating targeting

What say you?

NEW: Connor Stalions offers targeting rule change, similar to levels of flagrant fouls in basketball🤔

1️⃣ 5-yard targeting penalty for incidental contact to the head

2️⃣ 15-yard penalty, no ejection, for leading with crown

3️⃣ 15-yard penalty & ejection for clear intent… pic.twitter.com/3LY05AbJxZ

— On3 (@On3sports) January 2, 2025

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

And if it's unanimous no, there's no yards, no nothing.
If it's split, it's 5 yds only.
If it's unanimous yes, 15 yds, player disqualification, sits the next full 1 quarter only (not a full half)

I'm all for player safety.
But I'm tired of taking football outta football.

Defer to guys that have actually been there done that, at an elite level, and rely on their insight

Heisenberg01 said:

---

This fixes nothing when each conference hires and guides the referees on how they want targeting called and which teams need to be protected. Referees need to legislated and assigned by a national organization. Referees and the replay officials need to be completely independent from the teams and conferences. There is no reason that refs need to be assigned to cover games in Austin since they live in Giddings. This is a billion $ industry and needs to be run as such.

---

This is also true

Dont eject them, but they sit for the remainder of the possession. Or maybe two possessions.

Targeting is becoming like holding. The obvious is obvious. The rest is subjective. Its part of the game and one team will get the bad end of the stick.

There is nothing to fix and the more you try, the worse it likely will get.

Oh

This guy thinks that they messed up the call bc the rule is not clear. LOL

Alrighty

The refs not even throwing the flag on the field tells me the entire crew had their marching orders. Easier for replay to align with an agenda if the call on the field does not have to be overturned.

Conference crews for all conferences help out their teams fighting for a playoff spot. SEC being at the top.

But it's one thing for conferences to protect their own.

It's another for the powers that be control things in playoff games such as this for ALL to see. Easier to blow off in the regular season when the non call helped Texas against us. Miami Vs Cal. Clemson Vs SMU.

It's another when it changed the outcome of a final 4 team.

As Jackie always said you have to be better to overcome the so called bad calls. ASU actually was bc they had over twice as many yards at that time and the corruption still took it away.

As has been pointed out, ASU has missing one of their best defenders the first half bc of targeting on a hit that was no where close to as bad as the hit 16 made.

1. Define incidental?

2. Leading with the crown: That 6" area starts where and goes to where?

3. How do we know what someone's intent is/was?

Again these things are too subjective. Would be easier if you said "lowers" the helmet. Again, still brings in subjectivity.

I use software for work to assess Ergonimics. The software allows me to see spine angles, neck angles, arm angles, legs, back usage with a weighted score(s) to indicate "hot spots" and lift "angles" to assist in eliminating MSDs. But a billion dollar sport can't use software to determine targeting etc.

Also, start posting pictures of refs, their CV or Bio, and their stats for missed calls etc. If a player has to sit out a half for targeting why not a ref for missed calls?

Heisenberg01 said:

---

This fixes nothing when each conference hires and guides the referees on how they want targeting called and which teams need to be protected. Referees need to legislated and assigned by a national organization. Referees and the replay officials need to be completely independent from the teams and conferences. There is no reason that refs need to be assigned to cover games in Austin since they live in Giddings. This is a billion $ industry and needs to be run as such.

---

Geography had nothing to do with the no call in the tu vs asu game

This thread is talking about two different problems. One is the lack of consistency with the targeting call even when replay is mandatory. The other is the extreme nature of the penalty that seems unfair to the athlete. These players have a limited number of games each year and to take away potentially 3/4 of a game because they committed a penalty seems excessive. Especially when some of these plays are unavoidable due to the offensive player altering his position just before contact. I think football has done a good job of getting the malicious hits out of the game, but now it is time to rethink the severity of the targeting penalty and then apply it consistently.

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that maybe Conferences don't want tacked down rules, that are clear cut, and that they might prefer certain rules to be ambiguous, like holding and targeting?

Cyber5 said:

---

Changing the rules doesn't solve the inconsistent application of the rules, which is the biggest problem of all.

---

... True in almost all sports since scoring and officiating began.


National assignments and governing bodies doesn't help this (NBA, MLB, NFL)

Local/Conferences are open to even more criticism.

The targeting penalty needs to be revised and remove incidental contact component as it is way too subjective to have a player elected or suspended. It also needs to not be called when it is the offensive player lowering their head.

Medaggie said:

---

Targeting is becoming like holding. The obvious is obvious. The rest is subjective. Its part of the game and one team will get the bad end of the stick.

There is nothing to fix and the more you try, the worse it likely will get.

---

Holding is intentionally allowed except when turning the shoulders or grabbing the jersey outside of basically the numbers on the front. But that is subjective which is why fabs cry about it especially when it's not called and their team is impeded.

Targeting is a cultural issue but the inconsistency is solely judgment. Any of us who played team sports a couple decades back before video replay rules knew you did not contest the call at the high school kind of like questioning balls and strikes in baseball today. As the professional players have become more valuable the rules have definitely drifted on commenting to officials in ways that I find uncomfortable.

As an aside on that, I called both basketball and slow-pitch softball and ended up being the only official for a softball have one night on one diamond at old Penberthy along Weldon. I called the teams in and explained I would have limited sight lines and would get calls wrong but expected them to graciously accept the calls or I'd immediately toss complainers. They bit on their tongues in frustration several times visibly and I felt pretty bad about it.

I would go to the NFL rule which is ejection only for the most egregious hits. The auto ejection I think is the problem because most officials think it is too severe for most of these hits especially when it carries over to the next game.

Medaggie said:

---

Targeting is becoming like holding. The obvious is obvious. The rest is subjective. Its part of the game and one team will get the bad end of the stick.

There is nothing to fix and the more you try, the worse it likely will get.

---

Yep... If you look for an absolute here, you will end up with rugby style helmets (or no helmets but some form of padding). It is noty an easy fix. We all want the old school physical game but at the same time I think most hate to see guys get injured. Play on....

Heisenberg01 said:

---

This fixes nothing when each conference hires and guides the referees on how they want targeting called and which teams need to be protected. Referees need to legislated and assigned by a national organization. Referees and the replay officials need to be completely independent from the teams and conferences. There is no reason that refs need to be assigned to cover games in Austin since they live in Giddings. This is a billion $ industry and needs to be run as such.

---

Agreed, all subjectivity has to be removed from the refs, or their has to be a way to ensure 100% objectivity by the refs.

TxAg76 said:

---

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

---

Wait a minute. You think defensive guys are going to call targeting?

[url=https://imgbb.com/][/url]

Targetting call (or not) on a game changing moment in the game matters way more when it can be be so subjectively applied.

A 5 yard penalty for incidental contact to the head would result in a 5 yard penalty on every single play. It is almost impossible not to have incidental contact somewhere on the head when making a routine tackle. That is the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

If they aren't going to completely gut the penalty or make it truly uniform in enforcement (and they won't), the best solution is to treat it as an unsportsmanlike penalty. 15 yard penalty with no ejection unless you do it twice, and the ejection doesn't roll to the next game. It would at least minimize the impact of it and bring it more in line with a pass interference. This doesn't solve the issue in the Texas game, but there is no rules-based solution for officials just refusing to call an obvious penalty. That would require a completely new system of official accountability, and that's a different discussion.

Kansas Kid said:

---

I would go to the NFL rule which is ejection only for the most egregious hits. The auto ejection I think is the problem because most officials think it is too severe for most of these hits especially when it carries over to the next game.

---

Then they need to stop thinking.

The goal of the rule is to limit liability of the member institutions. Having the rule is proof of due diligence even if the officials can't call it consistently.

Just go back to playing football and QBs being more careful and not stringing guys out and WR keep their head on a swivel.

It's gotten to a point where offensive players expects not to get hit so everybody loses their crap when football happens. It crazy.

Don't want to get hurt? Don't play.

Moms association ruining football.

Everybody wants Timmy to score but heaven forbid Timmy get hit.

QBs, make smarter throws……..

Define egregious!

That's why we're in the position we're in...it's all subjective.

So do you think the hit on the ASU play was egregious...did it concuss the asu player?

Now get 5 officials huddled up to agree? Have some spectators throw crap on the field, put money on a game...changes the dynamics.

TxAg76 said:

---

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

And if it's unanimous no, there's no yards, no nothing.
If it's split, it's 5 yds only.
If it's unanimous yes, 15 yds, player disqualification, sits the next full 1 quarter only (not a full half)

I'm all for player safety.
But I'm tired of taking football outta football.

Defer to guys that have actually been there done that, at an elite level, and rely on their insight

---

I'd rather people that know nothing of football and teach each one and altogether what targeting is and isn't. That way you bring no bias into the calls. Also they'd have to be transparent on their personal funds and gauge them on fico scores and interviewing acquaintances of the subjects. Too much money out there for bad actors. It's something to see the UH Sip call was a lawyer, the ASU call was another lawyer. Is business being promised with favorable calls? Just shady sheet going on.

Old Sarge said:

---

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that maybe Conferences don't want tacked down rules, that are clear cut, and that they might prefer certain rules to be ambiguous, like holding and targeting?

---

Yes, yes, yes. They want ambiguity or they would use technology to eliminate some of it such as a sensor in the ball and on the sideline to determine forward progress. They have an agenda and it isn't fair play.

Duckhook said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

---

Wait a minute. You think defensive guys are going to call targeting?

[url=https://imgbb.com/][/url]

---

Yeah, I do.

TxAg76 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

---

Wait a minute. You think defensive guys are going to call targeting?

[url=https://imgbb.com/][/url]

---

Yeah, I do.

---

Again

[url=https://imgbb.com/][/url]

Shoefly! said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

And if it's unanimous no, there's no yards, no nothing.
If it's split, it's 5 yds only.
If it's unanimous yes, 15 yds, player disqualification, sits the next full 1 quarter only (not a full half)

I'm all for player safety.
But I'm tired of taking football outta football.

Defer to guys that have actually been there done that, at an elite level, and rely on their insight

---

I'd rather people that know nothing of football and teach each one and altogether what targeting is and isn't. That way you bring no bias into the calls. Also they'd have to be transparent on their personal funds and gauge them on fico scores and interviewing acquaintances of the subjects. Too much money out there for bad actors. It's something to see the UH Sip call was a lawyer, the ASU call was another lawyer. Is business being promised with favorable calls? Just shady sheet going on.

---

If you haven't been in the situation, making the similar play, you have no idea how to gauge what happened in the 2 seconds before impact and the 1 second after.

Some of us played in the days where the "targeting" type of hit was celebrated, and put on Sportscenter. So you're headhunting trying to make that type of hit in every play you can

Because of that, you can tell when a player is really trying to bring the heat versus trying to back off, and/or change their body for different kind of collision and/or point of impact.

Duckhook said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

---

Wait a minute. You think defensive guys are going to call targeting?

[url=https://imgbb.com/][/url]

---

Yeah, I do.

---

Again

[url=https://imgbb.com/][/url]

---

The intent to further player safety, short term and long term, isn't going away.

And the former defensive players acknowledge that, regardless of whether they think it's pussifying the game or not. Most don't.

So they can either watch more and more ****ty calls that put the defensive players in a really difficult spot, or they can engage directly into the enforcement of the intent, and try to make a difference to keep it as fair as possible

Better to leave it in the hands of those that know the difference as opposed to those who like elaborately written rules and haven't played beyond their video game consoles

oneeyedag said:

---

Define egregious!

That's why we're in the position we're in...it's all subjective.

So do you think the hit on the ASU play was egregious...did it concuss the asu player?

Now get 5 officials huddled up to agree? Have some spectators throw crap on the field, put money on a game...changes the dynamics.

---

That play wouldn't call for an ejection. Egregious is when a play is made with the main intent being to injure or serious inflict pain on a play that doesn't have any football reason. Usually they are crack back blocks or where a player lines up someone, frequently a receiver and launches full force into them leading with their helmet. Both the ASU and tu player reviews were on plays where the players were making a legitimate play on the ball and the targeting happened so you wouldn't even consider an ejection there.

As someone said above, for those that played in the old days, you would seek out the ear hole shots and the lime and then celebrate them especially if the player was injured. Those are the plays that need to be removed from the game completely and an ejection is warranted there. The 15 yard penalty has greatly reduced targeting plays in the NFL and high school football without the auto ejections.

TxAg76 said:

---

Shoefly! said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

And if it's unanimous no, there's no yards, no nothing.
If it's split, it's 5 yds only.
If it's unanimous yes, 15 yds, player disqualification, sits the next full 1 quarter only (not a full half)

I'm all for player safety.
But I'm tired of taking football outta football.

Defer to guys that have actually been there done that, at an elite level, and rely on their insight

---

I'd rather people that know nothing of football and teach each one and altogether what targeting is and isn't. That way you bring no bias into the calls. Also they'd have to be transparent on their personal funds and gauge them on fico scores and interviewing acquaintances of the subjects. Too much money out there for bad actors. It's something to see the UH Sip call was a lawyer, the ASU call was another lawyer. Is business being promised with favorable calls? Just shady sheet going on.

---

If you haven't been in the situation, making the similar play, you have no idea how to gauge what happened in the 2 seconds before impact and the 1 second after.

Some of us played in the days where the "targeting" type of hit was celebrated, and put on Sportscenter. So you're headhunting trying to make that type of hit in every play you can

Because of that, you can tell when a player is really trying to bring the heat versus trying to back off, and/or change their body for different kind of collision and/or point of impact.

---

I'm old, it was called
Spearing back then. Spearing was hitting a defenseless player on the ground.Either way it's better than what's happening now. I still want the Ags to win it all, it's in my blood. I just am figuring out there are more important things in my latter years agenda. All my sons and grandkids no I'm an Aggie and you don't even play throwing the hookem sign. Yes blind side hits were celebrated, even "Hit of the Game!"