Targeting Penalty

[HolaKyle]

Here's the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6F3fwRuEUU&feature=youtu.be

Discuss.

[SoonerForLife92]

Complete and utter crap. Why do refs hate us so much? Giving any ref the power to eject a player for something like this is completely ridiculous in my opinion.

[SoonerOX]

Horse poop call

[70sooner]

did anybody hear anything about Lynn after his INT? he hasn't been back in since.

[Collier11]

it was trash, refs cant JUST call it because its a hard hit

[ashley]

My concern is how crazy the rule is. If the ejection was overturned why would there still be a penalty.

[Eielson]

It was obviously bad. That's why they overturned the ejection.

[soonertodd]

did anybody hear anything about Lynn after his INT? he hasn't been back in since.

Damn refs should have flagged the TU player that hit Gabe up high on the INT. Clearly targeting IMO

[okiewaker]

So,,,if he wasn't ejected for targeting then WTF penalty is it? Unsportsmanlike Conduct? Man I'm confused.

[JLEW1818]

Could careless about helmet to helmet hits. Play or don't play.

If the world makes such a big deal about helmet to helmet hits, the rule should be ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED TO SHOW THE HIT ON ANY HIGHLIGHT SHOW PERIOD

[Collier11]

I get the "leading with the crown of your helmet" deal, or the "helmet to helmet", what I don't get is the overreaction about hard hits. It will happen, it is football, if you didn't want to get hit hard you wouldn't play

[SoonerForLife92]

I get the "leading with the crown of your helmet" deal, or the "helmet to helmet", what I don't get is the overreaction about hard hits. It will happen, it is football, if you didn't want to get hit hard you wouldn't play

Exactly. They are ruining the game. People know the consequences when they play.

[Okie35]

Awful call.

[SoonerorLater]

The worst part of this asinine rule is that OU was penalized for something that wasn't a personal foul. Gabe Lynn did nothing wrong but the call gave TU half the distance and an automatic first down. Did anybody in the rules committee think this out before knee-jerking on this helmet to helmet crap.

[bluedogok]

My concern is how crazy the rule is. If the ejection was overturned why would there still be a penalty.
Only the ejection is reviewable, the call stands whether it is valid or not. A stupidly written rule.

[okiewaker]

I guess I just don't understand. If a penalty is called for targeting, then reviewed, then overturned.....what penalty is there? Is there 2 penalties when a targeting call is made? Does anyone know? I am obviously missing something.

[bluedogok]

Only the ejection can be reviewed/overturned, the penalty still remains in effect because it was called. The penalty cannot be overturned by review.
Again, stupidly written rule.

[SoonerInFortSmith]

Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that he hit he Tulsa player in the shoulder with his shoulder?

[SoonerStormchaser]

One of these days, a ref is gonna find himself on the receiving end of a punch from a player/coach after a stupid call...bank it.

[Widescreen]

Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that he hit he Tulsa player in the shoulder with his shoulder?

The announcer mentioned it several times and he disagreed with both the penalty and the ejection. Everyone here has been talking about here it too. So I'm not sure what you mean by "anyone".

[okiewaker]

I guess this is the "New Football" ...a penalty is overturned yet you must still administer the penalty. Sounds reasonable.

[bluedogok]

I guess this is the "New Football" ...a penalty is overturned yet you must still administer the penalty. Sounds reasonable.
They probably think it will open up review to all penalties, the "if we overturned that call then we would have to review all penalties" mentality.

[okiewaker]

Happening as we speak in the Bama game.

[BajaOklahoma]

Bama just got called too.
Not a targeting foul, but the penalty stands.

[bluedogok]

It is just a bad rule. Most that I have seen go to review the player has not been ejected and shouldn't have been. In fact in most cases the flag should have been overturned.

[Judge Smails]

This rule sucks so bad.

Whoever wrote it should be kicked in the nutz.

[En_Fuego]

No way that was targeting (Bama game) or even a penalty. This rule is getting really ridiculous.

[S.PadreIsl.Sooner]

If you watch closely you can see the ref throwing the flag BEFORE the hit was made!

Also, Bama just got screwed by the same type call!

[Statalyzer]

The Alabama penalty was one of the most BS things I've ever seen. Fixing the ejection is only half the problem. EVEN GIVEN THE NEW "SAFETY" RULES THAT WAS NOT A PERSONAL FOUL. The guy was going for the interception and their shoulders bumped.

[mhackl]

Happening as we speak in the Bama game.

This chit is ridiculous. "Sorry, ref was wrong, but we're still going to enforce a 15-yard penalty because we want to prove a point"

The most yelling at the TV that I've done today.

[aurorasooner]

This rule sucks so bad.

Whoever wrote it should be kicked in the nutz.I'm not so sure it's a bad rule in theory, but in reality it's not working. When the targeting ejection is over-ruled by the booth reply (in games where replay is available), then the penalty should be nullified too.
The 2 I've seen today (the OU/Tulsa game and the a$m/Bama game) & they were just ridiculous. The game is just too fast on the field for the officials to make an accurate determination of this rule in some cases.

[Piware]

Officials are over functioning on this and they are being told to err on the side of caution. That's fine but not the darn 15 yard penalty. How many darn hits out of bounds do we see in a weekend and now they seem to be overlooking that. Targeting must be the flavor of the month. Grrr!

[okiewaker]

They trying to turn football into badminton. To many more of these sh!t rules I'm gonna take up pottery making on the weekends.

[Soonerfossil]

So gang, is there any chance enough people could complain to the NCAA to get them to change this totally stooped, moronic rule.

If the replay shows the reason the penalty was called was BS, the 15 yards should not happen either. Somebody had their head completely up their azz when they wrote and approved this rule. This type of call could be the deciding factor in a tight game, AND crucially important game. TARGETING CALL OVERTURNED, PENALTY OVERTURNED. SIMPLE, EVEN FOR THOSE MORONS WHO CAME UP WITH THIS DUMB RULE!!!!

[Sooner-In-The-Swamp]

This rule sucks so bad.

Whoever wrote it should be kicked in the nutz.

Just make sure you aren't "targeting" the nutz.

[Edmond Sooner]

As has been pointed out, Alabama just about got one of their best player's ejected over this dubious rule just like we did today. The penalty against them still stood, of course, and it could have cost them points just before half-time. This rule needs to be revisited by the PTB.

[Judge Smails]

I'll take the ejection. And the 15 yards.




Just make sure you aren't "targeting" the nutz.

[okiewaker]

Allz im saying, if the targeting is overturned DONT assess the 15 yard penalty.

[OUmillenium]

Happening as we speak in the Bama game.

Similar play, same result.

Having these 2 plays occur today, 1 in OU game and 1 in the biggest game of the early season, is great for those of us with a sackonuts and a brain who want this ridiculous rule repealed.

[BoulderSooner79]

Allz im saying, if the targeting is overturned DONT assess the 15 yard penalty.

Geez people, it was a simple bad call. End of story. Overall, the refs called a very good game. The only other obvious bad call was not flagging Julien Wilson for shoving the TU quarterback after the play. And I understand why they don't reverse the penalty on review. They don't want judgement call type plays being reviewed or the game would take forever. Imagine reviewing holding calls. But with the severity of the penalty (ejection), they made an exception on the rejection part and obviously they proved the right thing in this case. The ref could have made the same bad call last year and the only thing that has changed is the automatic ejection.

[SoonerForLife92]

I don't even know who to reply too. This post is almost pointless considering everyone knows how much of a bullSHT call this is anyway and is posting so. BUT with the bammer game and ours, it is getting out out of hand. The rule of letting a single ref eject a player by his own biased opinion is completely and utterly ridiculous. I absolutely hate this rule it is ruining the game of football.

In both of the games the ejection was overturned yet the penalty stood.... How does this makes sense "according to the rules" considering the refs overturned the ejections showing both of the calls were bullcrap anyway, because the defense was clearly leading with the shoulder.... Screw these call happy officials..

[Curly Bill]

Sports, maybe every single one of em, will be better when the human officials are replaced by robots who don't miss calls.

Human element my butt! Just get it right!!!

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't even know who to reply too. This post is almost pointless considering everyone knows how much of a bullSHT call this is anyway and is posting so. BUT with the bammer game and ours, it is getting out out of hand. The rule of letting a single ref eject a player by his own biased opinion is completely and utterly ridiculous. I absolutely hate this rule it is ruining the game of football.

In both of the games the ejection was overturned yet the penalty stood.... How does this makes sense "according to the rules" considering the refs overturned the ejections showing both of the calls were bullcrap anyway, because the defense was clearly leading with the shoulder.... Screw these call happy officials..

It's an experimental rule, we'll see how it plays out. But the ref is supposed to be calling it the same way as they have for the last few years - the automatic ejection is the new thing. It's weird to review it, but you can see why given this example. Had the call happened in the last 2 years, there still would have been the PF call and 1st down. So the only change was that the game was delayed for the review. We would have still bitched about a bad call, but man, I hope the whining wouldn't have been so bad. It will be interesting to see how many of these flags are thrown this season (regardless of the outcome of the review). If there are significantly less flags than previous years, I guarantee the rule will stay since that is the intended effect.

[bluedogok]

So gang, is there any chance enough people could complain to the NCAA to get them to change this totally stooped, moronic rule.

If the replay shows the reason the penalty was called was BS, the 15 yards should not happen either. Somebody had their head completely up their azz when they wrote and approved this rule. This type of call could be the deciding factor in a tight game, AND crucially important game. TARGETING CALL OVERTURNED, PENALTY OVERTURNED. SIMPLE, EVEN FOR THOSE MORONS WHO CAME UP WITH THIS DUMB RULE!!!!
It will probably be addressed in the off season.

[SoonerForLife92]

It's an experimental rule, we'll see how it plays out. But the ref is supposed to be calling it the same way as they have for the last few years - the automatic ejection is the new thing. It's weird to review it, but you can see why given this example. Had the call happened in the last 2 years, there still would have been the PF call and 1st down. So the only change was that the game was delayed for the review. We would have still bitched about a bad call, but man, I hope the whining wouldn't have been so bad. It will be interesting to see how many of these flags are thrown this season (regardless of the outcome of the review). If there are significantly less flags than previous years, I guarantee the rule will stay since that is the intended effect.


The two calls in our game and Bama's game show how ridiculous the refs are calling things though. The whining is justified.

[Sabanball]

It will probably be addressed in the off season.

You can probably take that to the bank. What good is a reversal if the penalty still stands?

[okiewaker]

Geez people, it was a simple bad call. End of story. Overall, the refs called a very good game. The only other obvious bad call was not flagging Julien Wilson for shoving the TU quarterback after the play. And I understand why they don't reverse the penalty on review. They don't want judgement call type plays being reviewed or the game would take forever. Imagine reviewing holding calls. But with the severity of the penalty (ejection), they made an exception on the rejection part and obviously they proved the right thing in this case. The ref could have made the same bad call last year and the only thing that has changed is the automatic ejection.

Are YOU drunk? I don't GAS about the refs. I'm Talking about the stupid rule that if the "targeting" penalty is reversed, you still administer the 15 yd penalty.

[BoulderSooner79]

Geez people, it was a simple bad call. End of story. Overall, the refs called a very good game. The only other obvious bad call was not flagging Julien Wilson for shoving the TU quarterback after the play. And I understand why they don't reverse the penalty on review. They don't want judgement call type plays being reviewed or the game would take forever. Imagine reviewing holding calls. But with the severity of the penalty (ejection), they made an exception on the rejection part and obviously they proved the right thing in this case. The ref could have made the same bad call last year and the only thing that has changed is the automatic ejection.

>Are YOU drunk? I don't GAS about the refs. I'm Talking about the stupid rule that if the "targeting" penalty is reversed, you still administer the 15 yd penalty.[/QUOTE]

Not drunk yet, are you? It's because it would be absurd if judgement calls start being reviewed - think holding calls. And there could be cases where a flag *is* justified, but not a targeting call. Take the case with Lynn today. Suppose he had come in 1/2 second later after the ball had clearly been past the players and hit the ground. It would still be cause for a late hit flag, but not targeting. So if they reversed the targeting flag, TU would have gotten screwed out of a flag they deserved. The only reason for the review is because of the automatic ejection of the player and I'm glad they have it. Not just because it saved Lynn today, but because it will save Lynn reputation points for potential flags in the future. But this rule will not change because fans bitch about it. It will only change because the data shows it isn't working after a large amount of data is collected. I could see it changing because if the refs gang together and bitch about it - I'm sure they don't like video coming down to say they just blew a judgement call.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

There is no slippery slope argument.

Simply change the rule to remove the fifteen yard penalty should the call be overturned for this infraction, problem solved.

[BoulderSooner79]

There is no slippery slope argument.

Simply change the rule to remove the fifteen yard penalty should the call be overturned for this infraction, problem solved.

I disagree for the reason I stated above. I have no problem with the new rule and I understand why it is in effect. The NCAA couldn't survive if they had to pay a 3/4 of a BILLION dollar settlement like the NFL just paid. Imagine if that were levied against an individual school. But having seen the play today, I would argue they should enforce the rule in a similar way the NFL does. Instead of an automatic ejection on the spot, they should review plays later and hand out suspensions for the next game the same way the NFL handles fines and suspensions. And I think it should include plays that are not flagged - again ala NFL. If they did it that way, Lynn's play would have just been a bad call that it turned out to be, but no delay of game.

[Curly Bill]

I disagree for the reason I stated above. I have no problem with the new rule and I understand why it is in effect. The NCAA couldn't survive if they had to pay a 3/4 of a BILLION dollar settlement like the NFL just paid. Imagine if that were levied against an individual school. But having seen the play today, I would argue they should enforce the rule in a similar way the NFL does. Instead of an automatic ejection on the spot, they should review plays later and hand out suspensions for the next game the same way the NFL handles fines and suspensions. And I think it should include plays that are not flagged - again ala NFL. If they did it that way, Lynn's play would have just been a bad call that it turned out to be, but no delay of game.

Yeah, lets make college football more like the NFL! NOT!!!

[OU_Sooners75]

Bad call. And I think it is BS that the ejection can e overturned but not the penalty.

It made the difference between FG and TD.

[BoulderSooner79]

Yeah, lets make college football more like the NFL! NOT!!!

I understand the feeling, but in this case the NFL has it right. People may disagree with the rule, but I think it will accomplish the intended goal. There will be less hits to the head for fear of suspension AND the NCAA/CFB will be less vulnerable to lawsuits from concussed players. I'm just saying that since the call requires video review, it doesn't have to be viewed during the game to have the same result.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah, lets make college football more like the NFL! NOT!!!

I understand the feeling, but in this case the NFL has it right. People may disagree with the rule, but I think it will accomplish the intended goal. There will be less hits to the head for fear of suspension AND the NCAA/CFB will be less vulnerable to lawsuits from concussed players. I'm just saying that since the call requires video review, it doesn't have to be viewed during the game to have the same result.

And it still can if the replay shows that targeting didnt take place and therefore when the ejection is overturned the penalty is as well.

No problem throwing the flag , and of it is justified it sticks and so does the ejection. But it is stupid to be penalized by a play that the replay shows didnt ever happen.

Targeting carries with it an automatic ejection. So if ejection isn't warranted neither is the penalty.

[BoulderSooner79]

And it still can if the replay shows that targeting didnt take place and therefore when the ejection is overturned the penalty is as well.

No problem throwing the flag , and of it is justified it sticks and so does the ejection. But it is stupid to be penalized by a play that the replay shows didnt ever happen.

Targeting carries with it an automatic ejection. So if ejection isn't warranted neither is the penalty.

So what do you do about my example of a late hit? Say Lynn comes in obviously late and the ref thinks he went to head and calls it targeting instead of a late hit. Can they say, oh, it wasn't targeting but penalize for unneccessary roughness instead? If they couldn't, if would be exchanging one bad call for another bad (missed) call. But it would be a double whammy because it switches which team gets screwed! If you get into the game of reviewing judgement calls, this situation can happen. I'll go back to that BCS title game between tOSU and Miami. It sure didn't look like pass interference in the endzone against Miami to me. But it did look like defensive holding at the line on the same player before the ball was thrown. Both judgement calls and I think the ref got it wrong, but justice was served.

[rock on sooner]

I agree about the BSness of the targeting rule. The good thing about
reversal of the ejection is that if a top notch player is flagged, he can
at least continue to play the game. Having said that, yup, reversing
both aspects of the penalty should be in order....

[opksooner]

Here's the roster of the NCAA FB rules committee. I'm sure their contact information could be found with a bit of sleuthing:

http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=FBRULES

[okiewaker]

So what do you do about my example of a late hit? Say Lynn comes in obviously late and the ref thinks he went to head and calls it targeting instead of a late hit. Can they say, oh, it wasn't targeting but penalize for unneccessary roughness instead? If they couldn't, if would be exchanging one bad call for another bad (missed) call. But it would be a double whammy because it switches which team gets screwed! If you get into the game of reviewing judgement calls, this situation can happen. I'll go back to that BCS title game between tOSU and Miami. It sure didn't look like pass interference in the endzone against Miami to me. But it did look like defensive holding at the line on the same player before the ball was thrown. Both judgement calls and I think the ref got it wrong, but justice was served.

So I guess what you're saying is,,,,Lynn didnt target but deserved to get the 15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct? Even though he clearly used his shoulder pads to hit the other guy. Whatever

[BoulderSooner79]

So I guess what you're saying is,,,,Lynn didnt target but deserved to get the 15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct? Even though he clearly used his shoulder pads to hit the other guy. Whatever

No, I said "what if" Lynn had come in late as an example. He didn't, it was a clean play. I was just discussing the rule in general and why the powers that be might be reluctant to reverse judgement calls via video review. The way I interpret the new rule is they are saying that the refs and judgement calls are part of the game, even though the refs make mistakes. But since the refs hands are tied by the automatic ejection rule, they don't want a bad call to cost a kid 1/2 a game of PT, so they put in this exception. It's sorta like having an on the spot appeal process for sentencing. The reviewing is not commenting on the play as a whole, just whether the player deserves full judgement. He may have come in late, he may have grabbed a face mask that wasn't flagged or other such things. They are just saying he didn't go to the head in the manner they are trying to stop.

I see this as similar to the "3 strikes" rule that many states have in the court system. It leads to absurd sentencing where a person might go jail for attempted murder or it might be for stealing a loaf of bread (or wrongly accused of stealing bread!).

[okiewaker]

No, I said "what if" Lynn had come in late as an example. He didn't, it was a clean play. I was just discussing the rule in general and why the powers that be might be reluctant to reverse judgement calls via video review. The way I interpret the new rule is they are saying that the refs and judgement calls are part of the game, even though the refs make mistakes. But since the refs hands are tied by the automatic ejection rule, they don't want a bad call to cost a kid 1/2 a game of PT, so they put in this exception. It's sorta like having an on the spot appeal process for sentencing. The reviewing is not commenting on the play as a whole, just whether the player deserves full judgement. He may have come in late, he may have grabbed a face mask that wasn't flagged or other such things. They are just saying he didn't go to the head in the manner they are trying to stop.

I'm just asking, should Lynn have been penalized 15yds even tho targeting was overturned? I'm using the example that was played out on the field.

Your example, if Lynn would have come in late, then it would have been a "late hit" or "unsportsmanlike conduct",,,which is a penalty that already exists. I get what you're saying tho. Don't want to start reviewing every penalty and such. IMO, if the targeting is overturned, then no yardage should be assessed.

[BoulderSooner79]

[QUOTE=BoulderSooner79;3957830]


I'm just asking, should Lynn have been penalized 15yds even tho targeting was overturned? I'm using the example that was played out on the field.

And the simple answer is yes, because that is the way the rule is written today. I think everyone is in agreement it was a bad call, but the rules were followed. I was just discussing motivations of why the rule doesn't overturn the penalty on a bad call. They are not trying to fix a bad call, just trying to avoid an unfair side-effect of a bad call to an individual player.

None of this is black and white. Even on non-judgement calls I have seen bad side-effects from video review. I've seen plays where a receiver is ruled out of bounds on a TD catch and the video reversed it for a TD. But the video also reveals the receiver clearly pushed off, or half the O-line was downfield or some guy on offense is holding to bad he tackles a defender to allow the pass to be thrown. But they can't rule on those infractions via video no matter how egregous. So the bad call on the TD ends up being more just than the video correction - a team that broke the rules gets a TD. But we've decided to accept this possibility to get these plays "right" and most the time it works. But to reverse judgement calls when there are other judgement calls/non-calls going on all over the field is something the rules committee is not ready to accept yet. I'm just saying I can understand the reluctance - not claiming any moral right or wrong here.

[OU_Sooners75]

And it still can if the replay shows that targeting didnt take place and therefore when the ejection is overturned the penalty is as well.

No problem throwing the flag , and of it is justified it sticks and so does the ejection. But it is stupid to be penalized by a play that the replay shows didnt ever happen.

Targeting carries with it an automatic ejection. So if ejection isn't warranted neither is the penalty.

So what do you do about my example of a late hit? Say Lynn comes in obviously late and the ref thinks he went to head and calls it targeting instead of a late hit. Can they say, oh, it wasn't targeting but penalize for unneccessary roughness instead? If they couldn't, if would be exchanging one bad call for another bad (missed) call. But it would be a double whammy because it switches which team gets screwed! If you get into the game of reviewing judgement calls, this situation can happen. I'll go back to that BCS title game between tOSU and Miami. It sure didn't look like pass interference in the endzone against Miami to me. But it did look like defensive holding at the line on the same player before the ball was thrown. Both judgement calls and I think the ref got it wrong, but justice was served.

There is a penalty called late hit.

That is what the refs should call.

Not sure what's hard to understand. If a ejection can be overturned, that means by how the rule is currently written no actual penalty occurred. But the penalty stands anyway?

What happens if a ref has bet on a game and decides he will throw a targeting flag just to get a 15 yarder an hopefully to get a good defender ejected?

May seem far fetched by there is a history of refs betting on games.

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't see what is so hard to understand either. They are not trying to fix a bad call. They are trying to make the sentencing phase more fair by having "jury" instead of just the guy that threw the flag on a split second call.

Maybe another way to view this is that this automatic ejection thing is different than any other rule in that it is penalizing a player and not penalizing a team. They are saying if you can't tackle a certain way, then you are not allowed to participate. That's why I think the NFL has it right to do these things on Monday instead of during the game. Don't put this automatic ejection thing on the refs - let them handle the yards and downs and other technicals. Then if a suspension comes down on Monday for the next game, it clearly separates team penalties from individual player behavior modification.

[BoulderSooner79]

I have a question about the targeting penalty not yet discussed. What if the video replay is inconclusive because there is no good camera angle? On non-judgement calls, the play stands as called on the field. But if that happens here, and the automatic ejection is enforced, it would be a total screw job. That would mean one player would not have the benefit of appeal that every other player gets if they get flagged for the same thing. I would think the only fair thing to do in that case is to overturn the automatic ejection. That would be equivalent to innocent until proven guilty in a court proceeding. This new rule does open some fresh cans of worms.

[OU_Sooners75]

It's simply a pussification penalty of football.

[OUmillenium]

Too many poosy rules in NCAA now. IN the UTerus game, Diggs got lit up on a punt that hung up where he should have called a fair catch. He's a notsmart football player, doesnt call fair catch, gets decleated by a clean/hard hit, and out come the flags.

Pathetic

[Eielson]

Nothing wrong with the rule. They just need to call it better. Head trauma is a huge issue in football. I don't like seeing former players dying from their injuries years down the road, even if they're no longer in the spotlight. I can't block that out.

[Jack T.]

Was out of sync yesterday...just now watching the game.

Yes, BS call.

[Peeb]

Only the ejection is reviewable, the call stands whether it is valid or not. A stupidly written rule.
Yes, a stupid rule- and then badly applied in this instance. Glad that bad call didn't affect end result of that game. Concussions are a serious injury and should be minimized, but good old-fashioned hard hitting shouldn't be penalized.

[OUmillenium]

During the Texass v Ole Miss game...

Flag for targeting, ejection, review, no ejection

Ever heard that before?

[Statalyzer]

During the Texass v Ole Miss game...

Flag for targeting, ejection, review, no ejection

Ever heard that before?

Happened in the A&M-Alabama game too, to a Crimson Tide defender who was looking back at the ball trying to make the interception and rammed shoulders with the A&M receive after the ball got there. Shouldn't have been a flag at all.


Nothing wrong with the rule. They just need to call it better. Head trauma is a huge issue in football. I don't like seeing former players dying from their injuries years down the road, even if they're no longer in the spotlight. I can't block that out.

The rule is clearly wrong if it's getting enforced like this so consistently with tactic approval from the higher-ups. They aren't doing it for safety they are doing it to cover their own asses from accusations.

[BoulderSooner79]

During the Texass v Ole Miss game...

Flag for targeting, ejection, review, no ejection

Ever heard that before?

Sounds like the review part of the rule is working. It's not like we haven't been getting these flags in the past few years. The new ejection clause is just drawing more press.

[Widescreen]

I'm just tired of officials equating a hard hit with targeting. This is just a part of the "juice boxes for everyone" mentality. I understand we want to protect the players, but how is it I could immediately see that it was a shoulder hit while watching live on TV and an official standing right behind the play couldn't see the same thing? It's either targeting which should yield a 15 yard penalty and (I guess) an ejection, or it isn't and there should be no penalty and no ejection. I hope they get this cleaned up in the offseason but in the meantime I hope the officials will stop treating players like they're made of terracotta.

[Soonerfossil]

>Are YOU drunk? I don't GAS about the refs. I'm Talking about the stupid rule that if the "targeting" penalty is reversed, you still administer the 15 yd penalty.

Not drunk yet, are you? It's because it would be absurd if judgement calls start being reviewed - think holding calls. And there could be cases where a flag *is* justified, but not a targeting call. Take the case with Lynn today. Suppose he had come in 1/2 second later after the ball had clearly been past the players and hit the ground. It would still be cause for a late hit flag, but not targeting. So if they reversed the targeting flag, TU would have gotten screwed out of a flag they deserved. The only reason for the review is because of the automatic ejection of the player and I'm glad they have it. Not just because it saved Lynn today, but because it will save Lynn reputation points for potential flags in the future. But this rule will not change because fans bitch about it. It will only change because the data shows it isn't working after a large amount of data is collected. I could see it changing because if the refs gang together and bitch about it - I'm sure they don't like video coming down to say they just blew a judgement call.[/QUOTE]

Lord have mercy would you please use your brain for a minute. If the reason for the penalty was 'targeting', and the 'targeting' was overturned, then the penalty that didn't actually happen should not be enforced. I realize the air is thin where you live, but my God, take a hit on someone's oxygen tank to clear your head. You're talking outa your head!!!

[BoulderSooner79]

Lord have mercy would you please use your brain for a minute. If the reason for the penalty was 'targeting', and the 'targeting' was overturned, then the penalty that didn't actually happen should not be enforced. I realize the air is thin where you live, but my God, take a hit on someone's oxygen tank to clear your head. You're talking outa your head!!!

Insist on getting personal, eh? I'm not saying the new rule is either right or wrong. I'm just observing that the rules committe put more thought into this than the people expressing knee jerk reactions here. 1)They have a strong reluctance to reverse judgement calls - this is a judgement call.
2)They want to make a stronger effort to reduce tackling to the head area, so they increased the penalty to the individual player.
3)They realize refs make mistakes on judgement calls and deem it as "part of the game".
4)The new penalty is so severe, they want to protect the player from ref mistakes.

Okay, you're on the rules committee and you have conflicting requirements. What do you do? You're going to have to compromise no matter what. So they decided to keep 1-3 above. To satisfy 4), they decided to have an automatic committee review of just the penalty phase for the individual player. It's odd, but I sure as heck like it better than another alternative which is to scratch 4) altogether. That would mean Lynn would have sat out half the game on a bad call. Yes, they could reverse 1) above, but that one was hashed out long ago when any replay was introduced and it was a *very* strong agreement on that one.

There is another way to think of this that might make it more rational (unless you only care about knee jerk reactions). Think of the flag as 2 flags in 1. One is a personal foul team penalty and the other is an individual unsportsmanlike conduct against the player. Flag #1 is the same as it's always been - 15yds, automatic 1st down, not reviewable. Flag #2 is conduct against a player that may warrant ejection and the refs are required to consult each other before passing judgement. Video replay is used as input for that review.

There is very different intent on the 2 fouls. On foul 1, the rules committee doesn't care if a team continually commits the foul. If they think they can still win giving away 15 yards at a time, so be it. On foul 2, they are trying to achieve behavior modification of an individual player. They *do* care if the act is repeated and are telling him if he doesn't change how he tackles, he can no longer participate. But that message becomes a muddled mess if it happens on a bad call.