the Jordan Evens targeting penalty

[EatLeadCommie]

So it was upheld on the replay. On the radio, the guys all said it was targeting, but expressed misgivings about the rule itself. On TV, they weren't so sure.

Watching it in real time and again on replay, the QB clearly went down at the last second, exposing his head. There was no question he hit his head, but he didn't target his head.

Does him leaving his feet have anything to do with the rule?

[SoonerorLater]

This penalty needs to go. One of the problems is because this is all on the defense. Offensive player drops down, then it's still the defensive players fault. RB barrels ahead helmet down and there is contact, again it will be called on the defense. Either the offense shares in this rule or it should be eliminated.

[aurorasooner]

Does J. Evans have to sit out the Tulsa game?

It seems like I remember that last year if the player was ejected then he had to sit out the next game, or maybe that was if the targeting penalty was in the 2nd half, he had to sit out the 1st half of the next game. I don't really know.

[SoonerorLater]

Does J. Evans have to sit out the Tulsa game?

It seems like I remember that last year if the player was ejected then he had to sit out the next game, or maybe that was if the targeting penalty was in the 2nd half, he had to sit out the 1st half of the next game. I don't really know.

That is my understanding, the first half of the next game.

[cvsooner]

The referee to the media said Evans didn't try to wrap his arms around him, was in the process of leaving his feet and lowered his head. Textbook definition of targeting. Unfortunately. The good news for OUr side is since it was in the first half, Evans won't have to miss the first half of the Tulsa game (unlike what those dippy announcers said on the electric teevee machine).

[vtsooner21]

aurora, As far as I know, if the player is penalized for targeting in the first half, he's gone from the rest of that game. If the targeting takes place either after halftime or in an overtime situation, he's also gone from the first half of the following game. You have it right. Happy to have Evans for the next contest.
Boomer

[8timechamps]

Unfortunately, the right call was made on that play. It sucked for Evans.

This rule is a long way from being being a "good" one. Last night was the perfect example of why. There was absolutely no way Evans could have known in that instant that the Sokol was going to slide. Evans was attacking from inside the line, and Sokol decided not to slide until very, very late. Evans committed to the tackle at the same time Sokol committed to the slide, it was very clear there was no targeting intent, however, the rule doesn't make an exception for that.

What sucks is that there is very little Evans could have done different. What also sucks is that there's no 'good' way to coach for that rule in that instance. You can't tell defenders to hesitate and make sure the QB isn't going to slide. You coach defenders to attack the ball carrier, which is exactly what Evans did.

The rule needs to be addressed again. Automatic ejection needs to be removed from the rule. Allow the head official to make that decision based on the actual play.

[Okie35]

It was targeting per the rule but I think if it happens in the first half then you should only be suspended the rest of that game... Not the next half of a game too

[EatLeadCommie]

Thanks for the explanations, everybody. Much appreciated

[okiewaker]

As usual, 8time nailed it. Only thing I would add is, we need to stop letting the media dictate the game.

[ouwasp]

Like I said elsewhere, the rule is bs. But in this day and age we should just be thankful the sport still exists. It probably won't in another 25 years.

[rock on sooner]

Like I said elsewhere, the rule is bs. But in this day and age we should just be thankful the sport still exists. It probably won't in another 25 years.

I hope that you are wrong, but, I think it is needed to try to protect
these kids....

[BoulderSooner79]

I hope that you are wrong, but, I think it is needed to try to protect
these kids....

Don't be fooled - the rule is to protect the game more than the players. But if it does help a few kids, that will be a good side effect.

[SouthFortySooner]

Like I said elsewhere, the rule is bs. But in this day and age we should just be thankful the sport still exists. It probably won't in another 25 years.

If it isn't there will be an MMA version. Put up a fence, only football rules apply. Not 5th grade politically correct rules.

[hawaii 5-0]

I saw a lot of targeting last season that was overturned and shouldn't have been.


5-0

[Statalyzer]

I hope that you are wrong, but, I think it is needed to try to protect
these kids....

I just don't think a bad rule protects anyone. If anything it encourages offensive players to get into helmet contact situations to pick up a free 15 yards. It doesn't really encourage defenders to avoid headshots either since they can hardly predict exactly where a head is going to end up. Right now the rule seems to be "if it 'looks bad', it's a flag, if not, then it isn't."

[SoonerForLife92]

I just don't think a bad rule protects anyone. If anything it encourages offensive players to get into helmet contact situations to pick up a free 15 yards. It doesn't really encourage defenders to avoid headshots either since they can hardly predict exactly where a head is going to end up. Right now the rule seems to be "if it 'looks bad', it's a flag, if not, then it isn't."


Exactly. Exacctttlllyyyy. Rule is ridiculous. You are spot on with the offensive players abusing the rule. It's a lot easier to abuse that as an offense player, than to be a defensive player who's main concern is get the ball carrier down as soon as possible. When you are going to make a defensive stop you aren't thinking about hmm where is my helmet gonna end up??

[Widescreen]

Exactly. Exacctttlllyyyy. Rule is ridiculous. You are spot on with the offensive players abusing the rule. It's a lot easier to abuse that as an offense player, than to be a defensive player who's main concern is get the ball carrier down as soon as possible. When you are going to make a defensive stop you aren't thinking about hmm where is my helmet gonna end up??

That's also the reason that I don't think offensive players are going to abuse the rule. They are typically bang-bang type plays and so the offensive player doesn't have much more time to consider it than the defensive player in those situations. Plus, I think few offensive players are going to think "I'm gonna stick my head out there for someone to smack so we can get another 15 yards". Most players are concerned enough already about getting injured to intentionally put themselves in that position.

[BermudaSooner]

That's also the reason that I don't think offensive players are going to abuse the rule. They are typically bang-bang type plays and so the offensive player doesn't have much more time to consider it than the defensive player in those situations. Plus, I think few offensive players are going to think "I'm gonna stick my head out there for someone to smack so we can get another 15 yards". Most players are concerned enough already about getting injured to intentionally put themselves in that position.

You are probably right about the offensive player not abusing the rule, although I do remember Colt McCoy being able to put his pinky toe on the sideline and draw a 15 yard late hit penalty at will.

[Pride1Mom]

I was watching the Louisville/Miami game, and it looked like Miami should have been called on several plays. It just depends who the refs are. I guess we will never again see a "Superman" play like Roy Williams had on Sims again!

[vtsooner21]

Perhaps the Miami players were actually attempting to remove those ugly helmets they were wearing. Leading with the helmet in an attempt to dislodge those buckets might have been one of the better ideas -not at risk of any injury, though. Just when I thought that those helmets Maryland wore last year were the worst ever, here comes Miami with a new leader in putrid..
Boomer

[8timechamps]

Didn't see it mentioned, but last night on Stoops' radio show he said he had heard back from the Big XII head official. He said he had asked what he could coach his player to do different in that situation, and was told "nothing, he didn't do anything wrong".

Stoops didn't come out and say it was a bad call, but if the head conference official is saying there was no foul on the play, then it was in essence a bad call.

I really hope we don't have a similar situation in the future. I suspect the official's will always err on the side of the QB (as they did in this case).

[soonergirlNeugene]

Maybe not necessarily a bad call but rather a perfect example of a flaw in the rule itself.

[SoonerorLater]

Figures. Refs botch the call on the field and Evans gets ejected for his mistake (perceived). They reviewed the film in the booth. They even had time to read the rules if they would have bothered. So what happens to the refs? Nothing. When it's their turn to be accountable it's "hey anybody can make a mistake".

[BoulderSooner79]

Stoops did say he thought the reason it was not a penalty was because the QB had become a runner at that point and the Big12 official agreed. But then there is the reality. The refs will always treat the QB differently because they are the only player that is going to slide to avoid contact. Defenders must know it's the QB carrying the ball and respond differently than if it is an RB to avoid the flag. The gray area is true option QBs like the one at Oregon who will eat defenses alive if they don't treat him like a true runner. Just have to have faith the refs will do the right thing in that situation.

[Temujin]

Didn't see it mentioned, but last night on Stoops' radio show he said he had heard back from the Big XII head official. He said he had asked what he could coach his player to do different in that situation, and was told "nothing, he didn't do anything wrong".

Stoops didn't come out and say it was a bad call, but if the head conference official is saying there was no foul on the play, then it was in essence a bad call.

I really hope we don't have a similar situation in the future. I suspect the official's will always err on the side of the QB (as they did in this case).

I think it was a bad call to eject him. I'm not a huge fan of the rule, but I look at it kind of like a late-hit out of bounds play. Sometimes you've got the momentum going and you can't stop yourself in time. In that case, a late hit call, like the targeting call, sucks, but it's the rule. But I think the intent was CLEARLY not to hit the QB like that. He was trying to tackle the QB the way he's been trained (get low, use the shoulder), and the QB ducked into the hit and made himself vulnerable. The "targeting" was as much on the QB as it was on Evans. Hopefully the officials will learn to recognize that for future reference.

[8timechamps]

Stoops did say he thought the reason it was not a penalty was because the QB had become a runner at that point and the Big12 official agreed. But then there is the reality. The refs will always treat the QB differently because they are the only player that is going to slide to avoid contact. Defenders must know it's the QB carrying the ball and respond differently than if it is an RB to avoid the flag. The gray area is true option QBs like the one at Oregon who will eat defenses alive if they don't treat him like a true runner. Just have to have faith the refs will do the right thing in that situation.

That's exactly why this will happen again (not necessarily to OU, just a similar call against someone this year). The rule is pretty straight forward that when a QB leaves the pocket and brings the ball down he becomes a runner. However, I think there are officials that will still view him as the QB in the heat of the moment. And make that same call again. Had Evans hit Dixon in a similar way, it would have been nothing more than 4th down.

The rule just needs to be tweeked. If the defender started his commitment to make contact at the same time the QB started his commitment to slide, then the rule shouldn't apply. That's something that can be reviewed on instant replay to clarify. Forcing a kid to leave the game because he made the play he was coached to make is wrong and not what the rule was intended to stop.

[8timechamps]

I think it was a bad call to eject him. I'm not a huge fan of the rule, but I look at it kind of like a late-hit out of bounds play. Sometimes you've got the momentum going and you can't stop yourself in time. In that case, a late hit call, like the targeting call, sucks, but it's the rule. But I think the intent was CLEARLY not to hit the QB like that. He was trying to tackle the QB the way he's been trained (get low, use the shoulder), and the QB ducked into the hit and made himself vulnerable. The "targeting" was as much on the QB as it was on Evans. Hopefully the officials will learn to recognize that for future reference.

That's why I think the head official (on the field) should be charged with making the ejection portion of the rule. It's possible there could be a play that results in helmet to helmet contact, and it was incidental. In a case like that, throw the flag, but allow the player to remain in the game. Doesn't seem like rocket surgery.

[BoulderSooner79]

That's exactly why this will happen again (not necessarily to OU, just a similar call against someone this year). The rule is pretty straight forward that when a QB leaves the pocket and brings the ball down he becomes a runner. However, I think there are officials that will still view him as the QB in the heat of the moment. And make that same call again. Had Evans hit Dixon in a similar way, it would have been nothing more than 4th down.

The rule just needs to be tweeked. If the defender started his commitment to make contact at the same time the QB started his commitment to slide, then the rule shouldn't apply. That's something that can be reviewed on instant replay to clarify. Forcing a kid to leave the game because he made the play he was coached to make is wrong and not what the rule was intended to stop.

Yes it will happen again and that doesn't bother me as long as it's rare. And especially if it's a level playing field! TK could be a true option QB, but we are clearly going to limit his running and instruct him to protect himself instead of trying for a few extra yards. If he gets clocked during a late slide, I expect to see a flag. I'd rather the refs get it right - especially the replay refs. But smug righteousness that the refs got it wrong is not going to help on the field. Defenders must be aware of who has the ball and how things are called.

[Temujin]

That's why I think the head official (on the field) should be charged with making the ejection portion of the rule. It's possible there could be a play that results in helmet to helmet contact, and it was incidental. In a case like that, throw the flag, but allow the player to remain in the game. Doesn't seem like rocket surgery.

Hehe, I agree 8tc. But no one ever accused the league office of being intelligent...particularly when it comes to Big 12 officials.