Helmet to Helmet contact and targeting.

[Wide_Right]

This past week, the team we were playing, had two, flagrant targeting penalties to the head. In both instances, you could see parts of both helmets shatter and 'stuff' explode." As the play-by-play team stated in amazement.

The announcers were none to pleased with the reckless play. In fact one announcer, a former GSC coach, said :"If this continues, football will be a thing of the past."
Is he right?

In the NFL - this; "Earlier this year, Raiders linebacker Vontaze Burfict was suspended for the rest of this season -- amounting to 12 regular season games and the playoffs -- following a helmet-to-helmet hit on a player on September 29."

Targeting now carries this penalty;
"Targeting, or illegal hits above the shoulders, would still result in a 15-yard penalty and ejection of the player who committed the foul. Players ejected in the second half would still be required to sit out the first half of the following game."

Is this too lenient? Should players be suspended for games rather than a half?

.

[Turbonium]

This past week, West Georgia had two targeting penalties to the head. In both instances, you could see parts of both helmets shatter and 'stuff' explode.
The announcers were none to pleased with the reckless play. In fact one announcer, a former GSC coach, said :"If this continues, football will be a thing of the past."
Is he right?

In the NFL - this; "Earlier this year, Raiders linebacker Vontaze Burfict was suspended for the rest of this season -- amounting to 12 regular season games and the playoffs -- following a helmet-to-helmet hit on a player on September 29."

Targeting now carries this penalty;
"Targeting, or illegal hits above the shoulders, would still result in a 15-yard penalty and ejection of the player who committed the foul. Players ejected in the second half would still be required to sit out the first half of the following game."

Is this too lenient? Should players be suspended for games rather than a half?

I think they should be reviewed by the conference and a suspension longer than the half or game (if it occurs early in a game then it's basically a game suspension) should be determined from that. All targeting penalties are not created equally and those which are blatant or more violent than others should, in an ideal world, carry a heavier penalty. However, I can't say I trust anyone the RMAC has to make these rulings...

[Buckwheat191]

I think they should be reviewed by the conference and a suspension longer than the half or game (if it occurs early in a game then it's basically a game suspension) should be determined from that. All targeting penalties are not created equally and those which are blatant or more violent than others should, in an ideal world, carry a heavier penalty. However, I can't say I trust anyone the RMAC has to make these rulings...

[IUP24]

Admittedly, I didn't even know they could call targeting in D2 football. I have never seen it anywhere in the D2 game before, so this is all news to me.

I'm all for making football safer. I have no issues with the rule. I like the intent of the rule. The issue I have with it is that the rule is so inconsistently enforced (speaking from this at the D1 level). It seems like each week the interpretation is different. That's my problem. I watch a ton of D1 football and I am a season ticket holder for Pitt. I've seen two Pitt players ejected on very questionable targeting calls this year.

Last Thursday during the Pitt-UNC game, Pitt's starting safety Damar Hamlin was ejected for targeting. He wasn't even attempting to make a hit. There was a pass downfield that Hamlin had a shot at. He dove forward towards the ground with his arms outstretched to make an interception prior to the ball hitting the ground. The UNC wide receiver also dove for the pass. Their helmets collided. Hamlin, a senior, had a half of football taken away from him. Why? Because he was trying to intercept the pass. I understand that there's a lot of gray area in the interpretation of the rule, but some of the rulings are ridiculous.

Earlier in the year, another defensive back for Pitt, Paris Ford, got tossed out of the Duke game. He laid a pretty hard hit on a player across the middle of the field. Ford stood with his feet planted and dropped his shoulder. As the wide receiver approached him, he dropped his head, and his head contacted the shoulder pads. Ford was ejected for a hit that was squared up for the offensive player's chest. I see worse hits than that every week that don't even get reviewed.

I'm not trying to sound off with sour grapes. I love the rule changes to make the sport safer. But I don't like the inconsistency in how it's interpreted. I also don't like how defensive players get punished for safely playing their position. You can't be ejecting kids for delivering clean hits that are turned dirty because an offensive player lowers their head, body, etc. I want them to keep the rule in place, but they need to seriously review this offseason how it's enforced and interpreted.

[Turbonium]

The tough part about calling this in D2 at the moment is the lack of replay to go confirm on the spot that you're not kicking a kid out for a clean hit. Pueblo has had several targeting calls the last couple of years be overturned by the conference later on but that does nothing to give a kid back the time he misses.

[Runnin' Cat]

https://sports.yahoo.com/toledo-foot...040003603.html

[Wide_Right]

https://sports.yahoo.com/toledo-foot...040003603.html

Just WOW! Not only ejected but arrested for assault . That is what I am referring too. Like all judgment calls, there is blatant, egregious calls like the Toledo incident, but others that are questionable.

In our game, these were pretty flagrant hits. I think the NCCA should have a penalty that covers duly flagrant call, where the refs have the option to suspend the player for one or two games.
If this is enforced, player might think twice about their decision making.

[Runnin' Cat]

Just WOW! Not only ejected but arrested for assault . That is what I am referring too. Like all judgment calls, there is blatant, egregious calls like the Toledo incident, but others that are questionable.

In our game, these were pretty flagrant hits. I think the NCCA should have a penalty that covers duly flagrant call, where the refs have the option to suspend the player for one or two games.
If this is enforced, player might think twice about their decision making.

I do not think officials should have authority to penalize outside of the game. Any further punishment should be levied at another level.

[Wide_Right]

I did not think officials should have authority to penalize outside of the game. Any further punishment should be levied at another level.

Yes, I didn't think of that, but you're right . . . with unerring accuracy and monotonous regularity.

; )

[Boohaha]

https://sports.yahoo.com/toledo-foot...040003603.html

If i could post it I would show you a hit one of my player suffered in our State championship game....it make this one look tame, and 0 penalty also, 4 plays later one of our running backs goes down out of bounds, opposing player dives after 3 steps helmet to helmet on the ground, our players helmet flies off, again no call....

[Turbonium]

I do not think officials should have authority to penalize outside of the game. Any further punishment should be levied at another level.

Needs to be done at a conference level, agreed.

[Wide_Right]

Needs to be done ...

Yes- it needs to be done period. I am seeing more helmet to helmet hits. And we all can frame a worse case scenario with Daryl Stingley.

A ejection from a game is not commensurate with the damage a hit like this can cause. Don't know why this is chapping my hide, but after this game
I became much more aware of it, and Boohaha's experience shows how unmitigated it can go. Not sure what the total answer is.

[Turbonium]

Yes- it needs to be done period. I am seeing more helmet to helmet hits. And we all can frame a worse case scenario with Daryl Stingley.

A ejection from a game is not commensurate with the damage a hit like this can cause. Don't know why this is chapping my hide, but after this game
I became much more aware of it, and Boohaha's experience shows how unmitigated it can go. Not sure what the total answer is.

I think we all agree it needs to be done, I just don't think that officials at the game should be who make the determination. Especially as they don't have access to immediate video review.

[Boohaha]

I think we all agree it needs to be done, I just don't think that officials at the game should be who make the determination. Especially as they don't have access to immediate video review.

I agree, and it's the intimidation factor that I think keeps officials from making the call, they dont want to be seen as having that big an impact.

[Runnin' Cat]

Yes- it needs to be done period. I am seeing more helmet to helmet hits. And we all can frame a worse case scenario with Daryl Stingley.

A ejection from a game is not commensurate with the damage a hit like this can cause. Don't know why this is chapping my hide, but after this game
I became much more aware of it, and Boohaha's experience shows how unmitigated it can go. Not sure what the total answer is.

The thing I I see is that coaches, fans, etc. want to see things cleared up, but then balk when they "see" it as not being a Targeting call.

From my standpoint, I would rather see it err on the side of calling the penalty. As earlier quote stated, if this does not clear up, the way football is played will drastically change, or we may not see football even survive.