@@Kings0424 buddy obviously its not just me complaining. No one wants to see the conference that has only won the natty like 3 times in the past 25 years😂
Editing suggestion: We don't really need 2 minutes of announcers opining about the situation while the refs discuss. Show the play, then the replay then cut to the ref's ejection ruling.
That's likely why there are multiple guidelines that dictate what constitutes a targeting penalty and how severe the penalty is. Ultimately, though, the original call is a judgment call (which is why prospective targeting calls get automatically reviewed)...and then the call can either be confirmed (leading to deciding which penalty to assess) or overturned (which still could end up as a basic penalty). Most of these calls are made before the player is considered "not defenseless," though...which people will continue to argue incessantly. This compilation actually has a targeting call made when the offensive player would be considered "not defenseless," actually...the Tennessee vs. Carolina clip where the Tennessee player comes through the middle of the pack and Emmanwori (#21) lowers his head to contact the facemask of the Tennessee player. I'm sure that whoever ends up reviewing the targeting calls (if I'm not mistaken, it's coming down from a more central location where top officials look at the play from multiple angles) takes all the actions of players into account (offensive player lowering their head, a player slipping, etc.) and yields their judgment from there...the refs are just the messengers in that instance.
My problem is the judgment calls needed to determine a personal foul vs a targeting call and the inevitable impact on the game. Given the role of judgment in making these calls, two officiating crews could have significant different views of what constitutes targeting, making it difficult for players to know the rules too. For example, a defensive player lowering their head before a hit could be seen as targeting while an offensive player doing the same is fine. Couple that with the player being ejected and you could have a call that massively affects the game that is solely based on the view of the officiating crew with rules that are very difficult to understand given the differences in enforcement. I am all for increasing the safety of the game, but I think they went a bit far with targeting.
To stop targeting, they need to make the penalty from the spot of the foul. You add 15 to most of those passes dropped from targeting and you get a huge gain.
A big part of the problem: Kids are not taught how to tackle, all the way back to Pony League. Wrap up. give him a hug. If kids were taught that, things would improve.
He was wrenching an opponent's leg himself...but what drew the foul was the second kick. The first one almost fully freed him from the situation (he scooted back a bit), so the second kick was unnecessary.
You gotta change that thumbnail bro... thats the NFL. Also i really feel like they need to re-examine the rule. That Cincinnati player get ejected was a bad call. You could argue the ECU receiver was "defensless." But if bro catches that, its a touchdown. And that Cincinnati player wouldve been ridiculed by his coaches for not making a play
The fight was in the NFL, but those aren't their NFL jerseys...I figure it's to show that the teams they're wearing have a rivalry similar to the one between the two NFL players (say that The Rock and Steve Austin once came out wearing Red Sox/Yankees gear (with their names on the back)).
Primary point of contact was the crown of the helmet to the chin of the facemask at almost the same time as the arm/hand contact. When the timing is that close, the officials tend to err on the side of caution for player safety. He still was likely to get a roughing penalty anyway for going to the head with the arm (had he driven the shoulder to the body, it would've been unlikely to draw any call).
Personally I think college and the nfl get to excited about calling targeting calls. Cuz there’s some plays where it just can’t be avoided or it’s not even meant to happen by the defender. I would love for the penalty makers and the refs to go play out there n try to not get a targeting call.
I have CTE so I fully understand being careful about head injuries. However at the same time, 70% of this video is just big hits where 15 years ago no flag was thrown. I’ll be nice as say some flags for defenceless receiver, but common bruh.
I think the CTE has affected your thinking a bit too much. Saying something wouldn't be a penalty 15 years ago is not even an argument. That makes no damn sense at all
@@fizzmoe9846 it’s my argument: it wasn’t a rule, it’s a stupid rule, so why have the rule. My guy it sounds like you’re the band geek who’s mad someone played enough sports to have cte. The dude with the tuba in the stands in high school and college, yeah him. The guy who keeps a grudge for no reason.
@@saltycanadian6190 Lol no. I played football for 9 years. Started on defensive line in high school. It was fun. I'm glad I did it, but I'm also very lucky not to have gotten injured in any serious way. Ad hominem attacks are not an argument either, btw. Especially when they're not true. Then you start to look like a fool with no composure. It's not at all a stupid rule. When American Football started, they wore tiny leather helmets. Do you think it's stupid to wear the ones we do now? Let's just wear no helmets. You sound far more bitter than I do which makes sense because CTE disproportionately affects the frontal lobe of the brain. The area responsible for emotional regulation and logical thinking. You can spit anger the rest of your life about 'back in my day!' or you can grow up, recognize that the way it was wasn't correct because we have new information, and change your mind. A real man can change his mind. Only weak men hold on so tightly
Get rid of the helmets, they are used as weapons, and encourage hitting with it, knowing the striker will be safe. And get rid of the fancy shoulder pads. Like rugby.
I'm not sure I see him "trying to take the helmet"...#54's hand does go near #10's helmet during the hit and just before the "punch" (admittedly, it is a weak shot, but throwing punches is gonna get you tossed) but I feel as though #54 said something that #10 took offense with and he tried to get away with a cheap shot.
5:55 - "...it's not a helmet to helmet hit..." So what was the principal point of contact if it wasn't...the arm connected with the facemask at the same time as the helmet contact.
I don’t have any problems with ejection from a game for targeting. My issue is if ejection happens in second half you miss the first half of your next game. I say if the players get ejected in the second half in the final 7 minutes of the 4th quarter, then they miss the first half of their next game or at least the first quarter of their next game. In fact that is even a better idea; you get ejected in the second half of a game, you only miss the first quarter of your next game and not the entire first half of your next game.
They take it on a case-by-case basis. Take a look at the Tennessee vs. Carolina clip where Emmanwori (Carolina #21) blocks #88 on Tennessee...the Tennessee player does lower his head some (and he's not considered defenseless), but Emmanwori still would've made helmet contact on the hit (which is why Emmanwori drew the foul...had he not lowered his head, the play would've ended there and he'd still have been in the game). Say a running back lowers his head and doesn't try to avoid the contact with the opposing player's helmet/actively tries to provoke a targeting call...I could see some sort of unsportsmanlike call being levied at the running back (are there "enticement" penalties in football anyway?).
Not in that clip...but earlier in the game (if I recall), a penalty was called on the opposing team because Julius actually did flop; I guess they just wanted to make sure they deserved the penalty the next time (and to give a message to Penn State/Joey Julius: "We know what you're up to.").
Everybody on Northern Illinois offensive line should have been cut after the game. No way in hell that somebody hits your quarterback like that and nobody even gets in dudes face or anything. Literally no reaction at all from the entire team. What a joke.
@@Kings0424 The one with Kentucky was shoulder to shoulder. The only flag there was he hit him when the returner called fair catch. The one with Miami and Texas A&M is closer, but with what vantage point that was given, it looks like it was plain shoulder to shoulder contact. It would be nice if the one with Miami and Texas A&M showed different vantage points so we could really see if it was targeting or not.
@@fizzmoe9846 It's a physical sport, it should be kept as physical as it originally was. "these kids" are adults who know what theyre getting into. CTE is a risk that they accepted as a possibility. Football was created as a violent sport, and obviously people loved it. i dont need to grow up, im not the one babyproofing a sport.
@@DancePeripheryDance Neither am I, but these people didn't just start playing, you know? People start contact football as early as 2nd grade for some, 3rd for most. They're taught to go all out and sacrifice the body for the good of the team. You can't remove the context from the entire picture. That's not fair. Do 3rd graders have the capacity to consent? If not, then these people are operating on principles and ideologies they had no idea about and now it's their entire life. Are you also trying to say that people wouldn't choose differently if they had foresight of the outcome? When they turn 58 years old and start to have severe cognitive decline, will they be glad that at least they played 'real' football? Or will that suddenly not matter anymore?
It’s football. It’s a contact sport. Horrible rule. Should be a targeting 1 and 2. Targeting 1 for incidental targeting/defenseless player and targeting 2 for malicious intent targeting/defenseless player. Targeting 1 is 15 yards. Targeting 2 is 15 and ejection. Pretty simple. Makes way more sense. Seems ridiculous to eject a guy for a bang bang football play.
Depends on the severity. Some targeting does need to end in disqualification. Like that one hit in the video that the tackler just launched with his helmet. That should be done away with because no way is that a football move.
Most of these dumb plays could’ve been avoided. Just play by the rules && it’ll be a wonderful game. These sports already limit what you can do. Just play && have fun.
You want to take targeting out of the game? Make it a 5 game suspension. Yes i know its only a 12 or 13 game season. Also if the offensive player drops his head he should e kicked out also.
On some of these I just don't know. . . . Is the defender just supposed to let the guy catch the ball? ? It's the the defense job to knock the ball loose
Yes, but if you hit a "defenseless reciever" anywhere above the shoelaces the stripey-shirt team will call targeting. You have to let the offensive player make a "football move", which is very poorly defined. But, the refs also have trouble figuring out when a pass is actually caught versus incomplete. Ciach: "He tucked the ball under his arm, ran 27 yards, broke two tackles, then dropped the ball, and that's an incomplete pass to you?" Ref: "Yes. He didn't use his turn signal when changing lanes." Coach: "Wha???"
1. He was wrenching an opposing player's leg himself, but let go when the player was down. 2. He had freed himself with the first push (notice that he scooted back a bit)...the second kick was what was drew the foul (it's similar to Suh drawing the foul for stomping on an opponent...they didn't call the pushing just prior, but got the extra shot).
Ill never get over how stupid the announcer is for saying Julius flopped when he got hit at the beginning. Maryland dude took a cheap shot. I hate how everyone talked shit about the kicker, dudes a person trying to enjoy a sport and people basically bullied him because he played it different than he was 'supposed' to
If I remember other parts of the game, he flopped on an earlier play (or it's based on his reputation for doing so in other games) and got the foul called against the opposing team...they made sure to deserve the foul the second time.
He did flop. He was known for it when he played. Most teams will just do a light formality block on a kicker if at all. On the first kick or two of a game he would act just like a normal kicker and then on the next one he'd intentionally try and blow up the guy blocking him as hard as possible, often right as the play is finishing. Then when he'd actually get blocked like someone attempting to tackle he'd flop to the ground and try and draw a flag. The fact that this was not the only incident during his time, and far from it, of someone just leveling him shows that.
With exception of a few (very few) almost all of these ejections were necessary and warranted. You can’t kick or punch and the targeting calls are all legit except one that I see. The defenseless player ones would not warrant an ejection had the hits not been malicious and deliberately injury seeking hits and clearly the players receiving the hits had already acknowledged the play was over and were moving forward to the next play or down. But bye and large none of these ejections are egregious or totally unacceptable. All are pretty justified.
cant even watch this when did football become touch football how else are some of these guys suppose to make the play when the offence lowers there head to make it helmet to helmet and understand the rules lol you got to be kidding me why go out there with all; that gear on and not be able to hit get real
Why is this a video about the craziest college elections with a photoshopped thumbnail containing the very well known fight and NFL rivalry between Andre Johnson and Courtland Finnegan?
