not targeting

[Bob39]

The problem with targeting is that at the moment the defender initiates contact, there is no way to know where the receiver's head is going to be when the contact takes place. In the half second between the moment the defender starts the hit and the actual contact, the receiver's head can move a foot or more. I don't know what you do about it. Maybe you keep the 15 yard penalty, but get rid of the ejection. I don't think a player should be ejected for something he may not have even been trying to do.

[jcgmoi]

I believe targeting in high school does not automatically result in an ejection. That's the way to go in college ball, even though it relies on an official's judgement about intent.

[icon]

Jack Tatum, Rodney Harrison and John Lynch would be proud of that hit. I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that the game has changed. Receivers used to know that they were fair game going across the middle and that they had better look out for that safety and their own safety.

[bgwinn01]

Saw it live on TV...they barely showed a replay. Then re-watched the YouTube replay. The head of either player was not involved. No targeting.

When they won't show replay, you know it's cooked. This was Birmingham tipping the game.

Interesting take. I noticed that at the time as well, but didn’t think of it. Several talking heads postgame did not agree with the targeting call. Either way, something needs to be done about the way it is called when you are asking a defender to stop making a play that is physically impossible to change on the spot. In other words not intentional.

[MizzouMarv]

If you hit a Bama player too hard, it’s targeting.

LOL, that's what everyone was saying around us at the game. If Rantz' description of targeting is the rule, then this was NOT targeting. No helmet to helmet, no hit to the neck or head. Just a very hard hit. "Blown up, Sir"

[2forDiving]

The problem with targeting is that at the moment the defender initiates contact, there is no way to know where the receiver's head is going to be when the contact takes place. In the half second between the moment the defender starts the hit and the actual contact, the receiver's head can move a foot or more. I don't know what you do about it. Maybe you keep the 15 yard penalty, but get rid of the ejection. I don't think a player should be ejected for something he may not have even been trying to do.

I think that some see things in slow motion replays and just assume the defender has time to adjust their hit, but that doesn’t work in real time. How does a defender know when he goes to make a hit that the receiver is going to be defenseless? Or where his head is going to be when contact is made? I get that they don’t want defensive backs launching head first into tackles and I think that can be penalized appropriately, but on a hit like Saturday’s common sense needs to apply and it wasn’t.

I also agree with others that the replay was only shown once, because someone knew it was a bad call, but by not showing it more only adds to the conspiracy conversation. Especially when later on another reviewed hit is shown 5 or 6 times.

[winonsports]

I believe targeting in high school does not automatically result in an ejection. That's the way to go in college ball, even though it relies on an official's judgement about intent.

I've seen ejections reversed by the replay official several times.

[MizzouMarv]

I just watched the replay of Wash St @ Ole Miss. On the Rebs first series it was 4th & goal. Trinadad overthrew a receiver in the end zone. The receiver (Stribling) was stretched out as the ball sailed over his head. He was "defenseless". A Cougar defender blew him up with his helmet to the Stribling's chest. No call!!!! Hmmm.

[hdhntr148]

Not showing replay was the tell as later on bam miller hit showed over and over which was obviously NOT targeting.

Burks could barely reach the helmet as receiver was in air and is 6' 5"! was NOT targeting by rule and that and the fake punt play were travesties where if had sideline camera it would have been easily first down.

watched bunch of SEC talking heads and they ALL said it was a first down and that Burks was NOT targeting. in bama centric SEC how dare they be better than the Dynasty!

[winonsports]

Not showing replay was the tell as later on bam miller hit showed over and over which was obviously NOT targeting.

There's a big difference between a RB carrying a ball and WR going over the middle catching a ball

[Power74]

I was at Faurot so I didn't see a replay on that one that I recall. But since the ref looked at it for about 5 seconds I thought it was going to be clear as targeting when I finally did see it. It wasn't clear at all and I believe it wasn't. The ref also only looked at the question of the Bama receiver's 'catch' on the sideline for a few seconds too. And then other times they will look at it ad infinitum and every frame like it is the GD Zapruder film. Those were a head scratchers.

[jcgmoi]

They thought Meadows might have a broken neck.