Game Under Attack - Helmet Contact

[IndyBison]

The reason the rules committee (made up of coaches and not officials BTW) has increased the penalty for targeting is because the game we love is under attack. Concussions are a huge concern and past attempts to get players to remove the head from the game have not worked. If they aren't able to get players to change technique, football could eventually go the way of boxing. Youth leagues are starting to see major reductions in participation already. The popularity of the game will sustain it for awhile, but if behaviors aren't changed it could be in significant jeopardy. None of us want to see that. You have to accept the possibility of some cracked eggs when addressing this.

If anyone has any other ideas to get players to tackle properly I'd love to hear them.

Also, the rule is there to protect the tackler as much as it is the opponent. They are just as susceptible to head injuries as the guy receiving the hit.

[missingnumber7]

The reason the rules committee (made up of coaches and not officials BTW) has increased the penalty for targeting is because the game we love is under attack. Concussions are a huge concern and past attempts to get players to remove the head from the game have not worked. If they aren't able to get players to change technique, football could eventually go the way of boxing. Youth leagues are starting to see major reductions in participation already. The popularity of the game will sustain it for awhile, but if behaviors aren't changed it could be in significant jeopardy. None of us want to see that. You have to accept the possibility of some cracked eggs when addressing this.

If anyone has any other ideas to get players to tackle properly I'd love to hear them.

Also, the rule is there to protect the tackler as much as it is the opponent. They are just as susceptible to head injuries as the guy receiving the hit.The problem becomes the speed of the game with officiating. And as an official I say this more than ever. The bang bang hits and judgement calls become the norm. Where one game a hit is a penalty and the next it is not. The rule as written is not a bad rule, and the ejection portion isn't terrible either. We aren't the first valley team to be hit with this either as ISUB had a LB ejected on a punt return. It hasn't been as bad as everyone predicted, but the point is being made that there are some hits that can be effected.

I hate to watch Sat football and point to Sun rules, but the Moore hit on Thursday night is a prime example of a player learning. He was flagged and ejected 2 times last year during the preseason and became very timid. He learned the rules and still hits hard in the strike zone.

[Bisonguy]

Leather helmets.

Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

The problem becomes the speed of the game with officiating. And as an official I say this more than ever. The bang bang hits and judgement calls become the norm. Where one game a hit is a penalty and the next it is not. The rule as written is not a bad rule, and the ejection portion isn't terrible either. We aren't the first valley team to be hit with this either as ISUB had a LB ejected on a punt return. It hasn't been as bad as everyone predicted, but the point is being made that there are some hits that can be effected.

I hate to watch Sat football and point to Sun rules, but the Moore hit on Thursday night is a prime example of a player learning. He was flagged and ejected 2 times last year during the preseason and became very timid. He learned the rules and still hits hard in the strike zone.

The hit by ISU last week against Indiana was as easy as they get. Grandma in the top row could have made that hit. He got him before the ball arrived.

[IndyBison]

Leather helmets.

Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

Some have said (hopefully jokingly) that getting rid of helmets is the only way to get players to change.

[missingnumber7]

The hit by ISU last week against Indiana was as easy as they get. Grandma in the top row could have made that hit. He got him before the ball arrived.Agree 100%, just pointing out we aren't the first and won't be the last. I know Bohl and his staff are very proactive with coaching to prevent this stuff.

[Bisonguy]

Some have said (hopefully jokingly) that getting rid of helmets is the only way to get players to change.




I am somewhat in that camp. Just like the greater protection by boxing gloves creates more powerful punches.

I am too lazy to look it up now, but it would be interesting to see concussion rates in rugby versus football.





Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

I am somewhat in that camp. Just like the greater protection by boxing gloves creates more powerful punches.

I am too lazy to look it up now, but it would be interesting to see concussion rates in rugby versus football.





Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

Soccer (especially girls) has a higher concussion rate compared to football. It has more to do with heading the ball than anything. More kids get concussions from riding bike as well. It's not a valid argument to defend football though. Football still has a problem and needs to fix it. This is the latest attempt.

[Bisonguy]

Soccer (especially girls) has a higher concussion rate compared to football. It has more to do with heading the ball than anything. More kids get concussions from riding bike as well. It's not a valid argument to defend football though. Football still has a problem and needs to fix it. This is the latest attempt.







The vast majority of studies I've seen show football as having he highest rate, with the UNC study of 100k students ranking girls soccer around 5th or 6th.





I would consider riding a bike in nearly the same category as breathing. Nearly every kid does it, so there will be plenty of concussions but how many per 1000 or per hour of activity?





I'd say the rugby to football would be a better comparison.











Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

[westnodak93bison]

At this rate we will be watching flag football in 10yrs

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Bison bison]

There is a very good chance our grandkids will play a very different game than we did.

[IndyBison]

The vast majority of studies I've seen show football as having he highest rate, with the UNC study of 100k students ranking girls soccer around 5th or 6th.

I would consider riding a bike in nearly the same category as breathing. Nearly every kid does it, so there will be plenty of concussions but how many per 1000 or per hour of activity?

I'd say the rugby to football would be a better comparison.

Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

I thought I had heard somewhere that girls soccer was higher. The bike reference is from parents pulling kids out of football because of the concussion risk. If you are OK with your son riding his bike you should be OK with him playing football. The concussion risk is the same. But perception is reality and if parents continue to pull their sons out of football we'll eventually lose football. One local league has gone from 125 players to 75 players in 1 year. The primary reason is risk of injury. Having current or former NFL players saying they don't want their kids playing football doesn't help.


At this rate we will be watching flag football in 10yrs

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

If we don't do anything the chance of flag football is even greater. Or no football at all.

[LITTLEGUYSINGREEN]

The reason the rules committee (made up of coaches and not officials BTW) has increased the penalty for targeting is because the game we love is under attack. Concussions are a huge concern and past attempts to get players to remove the head from the game have not worked. If they aren't able to get players to change technique, football could eventually go the way of boxing. Youth leagues are starting to see major reductions in participation already. The popularity of the game will sustain it for awhile, but if behaviors aren't changed it could be in significant jeopardy. None of us want to see that. You have to accept the possibility of some cracked eggs when addressing this.

If anyone has any other ideas to get players to tackle properly I'd love to hear them.



Also, the rule is there to protect the tackler as much as it is the opponent. They are just as susceptible to head injuries as the guy receiving the hit.

The problem I have with this rule is the ejection portion without the benefit of instant replay. The game moves so fast it is very hard for the refs to always see the hit as it actually happens. I think if a penalty as severe as ejection is imposed, instant replay should be used. In the case of tonight's play with Shepard, the ball carrier tucked his head down just as Shepard was coming in for the hit. I would have been hard for Sheppard to adjust his body position to adapt to what the ball carrier did. In any case, it was not a case of malicious intent. It didn't appear he was looking for helmet to helmet contact. It just happened to turn out that way. I feel if it there isn't malicious intent, the player shouldn't be ejected.

[td577]

Some have said (hopefully jokingly) that getting rid of helmets is the only way to get players to change.

I have been one to say it, but just because it was half in jest doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it. Players would completely change the way they initiate contact if there was no helmets. I also don't know what it would do to the game and how much different it would be without the equipment. Part of the game is the violence, just there are lines and it seems like all the time those boundaries are getting narrower. So maybe the goal is equipment that protects against serious injury but doesn't eliminate pain.

I have become less of a boxing fan because of what Bisonguy is saying. I have been watching more MMA stuff lately and my wife thinks it is so brutal. I explained to her that with the lesser gloves, there should be less blunt force trauma injuries. While they wear gloves, the purpose is to prevent lacerations to the face of the opponent and to protect enough to allow for the striking style the fans want to see. Boxing is about completely protecting the hands and it is all about blunt force trauma. To make boxing safer, they should make the gloves considerably smaller and worry about protecting against lacerations caused by knuckles rather than broken hands. There is only so much a hand can take and strikes to the head have to be calculated for both timing and proper force.

If football started going with less pads or padding that can protect against serious injury but don't alleviate pain, maybe some of the helmet to helmet or completely vicious hits would taper down. It will force those to become more technically proficient. Part of the problem is us fans have glorified the headhunters at various levels of football and put a serious premium on those that can inflict the most pain. I love the game and I love watching the guys that can hit hard. For me, it has always been part of the game and over the years have always had serious respect for the guys that could flat out hit. Ronnie Lott, Jack Tatum, Steve Atwater, and of course LT were favorite players of mine growing up. A couple of those guys probably wouldn't have been able to change their game.

[IndyBison]

[QUOTE=LITTLEGUYSINGREEN;761866]The problem I have with this rule is the ejection portion without the benefit of instant replay. The game moves so fast it is very hard for the refs to always see the hit as it actually happens. I think if a penalty as severe as ejection is imposed, instant replay should be used. In the case of tonight's play with Shepard, the ball carrier tucked his head down just as Shepard was coming in for the hit. I would have been hard for Sheppard to adjust his body position to adapt to what the ball carrier did. In any case, it was not a case of malicious intent. It didn't appear he was looking for helmet to helmet contact. It just happened to turn out that way. I feel if it there isn't malicious intent, the player shouldn't be ejected.[/QUOTE

He was trying to blow up the receiver. That by definition is malicious intent. Sometimes they hit helmets and sometimes they get lucky and don't. If a runner is truly lowering his head he's likely to no longer be defenseless. Then the only way you can have targeting is if the defender leads with the crown of his helmet. Then it doesn't matter where he hits the opponent. This is fairly easily corrected by proper technique. Players continue to chose blow-ups rather than tackles. I don't feel bad for them if they get a couple wrong.

[IndyBison]

I have been one to say it, but just because it was half in jest doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it. Players would completely change the way they initiate contact if there was no helmets. I also don't know what it would do to the game and how much different it would be without the equipment. Part of the game is the violence, just there are lines and it seems like all the time those boundaries are getting narrower. So maybe the goal is equipment that protects against serious injury but doesn't eliminate pain.

I have become less of a boxing fan because of what Bisonguy is saying. I have been watching more MMA stuff lately and my wife thinks it is so brutal. I explained to her that with the lesser gloves, there should be less blunt force trauma injuries. While they wear gloves, the purpose is to prevent lacerations to the face of the opponent and to protect enough to allow for the striking style the fans want to see. Boxing is about completely protecting the hands and it is all about blunt force trauma. To make boxing safer, they should make the gloves considerably smaller and worry about protecting against lacerations caused by knuckles rather than broken hands. There is only so much a hand can take and strikes to the head have to be calculated for both timing and proper force.

If football started going with less pads or padding that can protect against serious injury but don't alleviate pain, maybe some of the helmet to helmet or completely vicious hits would taper down. It will force those to become more technically proficient. Part of the problem is us fans have glorified the headhunters at various levels of football and put a serious premium on those that can inflict the most pain. I love the game and I love watching the guys that can hit hard. For me, it has always been part of the game and over the years have always had serious respect for the guys that could flat out hit. Ronnie Lott, Jack Tatum, Steve Atwater, and of course LT were favorite players of mine growing up. A couple of those guys probably wouldn't have been able to change their game.

Great analysis! Those guys played at a time when the knowledge of concussions was much less. Guys would get their bell rung but go back in. I also wonder if you look at their hits if they were tackles or blow-ups. You can still tackle someone with a hard hit. The NFL and ESPN have not helped by glorifying the big hits. Local sports often highlight the "hit of the week". More often than not those hits are illegal.

[LITTLEGUYSINGREEN]

[QUOTE=LITTLEGUYSINGREEN;761866]The problem I have with this rule is the ejection portion without the benefit of instant replay. The game moves so fast it is very hard for the refs to always see the hit as it actually happens. I think if a penalty as severe as ejection is imposed, instant replay should be used. In the case of tonight's play with Shepard, the ball carrier tucked his head down just as Shepard was coming in for the hit. I would have been hard for Sheppard to adjust his body position to adapt to what the ball carrier did. In any case, it was not a case of malicious intent. It didn't appear he was looking for helmet to helmet contact. It just happened to turn out that way. I feel if it there isn't malicious intent, the player shouldn't be ejected.[/QUOTE

He was trying to blow up the receiver. That by definition is malicious intent. Sometimes they hit helmets and sometimes they get lucky and don't. If a runner is truly lowering his head he's likely to no longer be defenseless. Then the only way you can have targeting is if the defender leads with the crown of his helmet. Then it doesn't matter where he hits the opponent. This is fairly easily corrected by proper technique. Players continue to chose blow-ups rather than tackles. I don't feel bad for them if they get a couple wrong.

Still doesn't address the issue of ejection without the benefit of instant replay. If a penalty as severe as ejection for two halves if imposed, then instant replay should be mandatory. This is a severe consequence for a penalty, the refs can't afford to get it wrong and it shouldn't be left up to judgment.

[td577]

[QUOTE=IndyBison;761874]

Still doesn't address the issue of ejection without the benefit of instant replay. If a penalty as severe as ejection for two halves if imposed, then instant replay should be mandatory. This is a severe consequence for a penalty, the refs can't afford to get it wrong and it shouldn't be left up to judgment.

Maybe the answer is an appeal process where a coach can submit video evidence to the ncaa and the next game penalty can be challenged. If there is undeniable evidence then make the appeal. There would have to be some sort of negative consequence if the coach wasted their time. I don't know what that would be because it can't be more punishment for the involved player. Lose a scholarship next year? At least then only very well defined misjudgment would be challenged.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

[IndyBison]

Maybe the answer is an appeal process where a coach can submit video evidence to the ncaa and the next game penalty can be challenged. If there is undeniable evidence then make the appeal. There would have to be some sort of negative consequence if the coach wasted their time. I don't know what that would be because it can't be more punishment for the involved player. Lose a scholarship next year? At least then only very well defined misjudgment would be challenged.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

Many conferences without replay have implemented review processes for guys ejected in the 2nd half of a game. If they determine the hit was not targeting they will not be suspended for the first half of the following game. Our D3 conference is doing that. If the hit today had happened in the second half I bet it would have been reviewed. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the direction we've been given I doubt it would be reversed.

[td577]

Many conferences without replay have implemented review processes for guys ejected in the 2nd half of a game. If they determine the hit was not targeting they will not be suspended for the first half of the following game. Our D3 conference is doing that. If the hit today had happened in the second half I bet it would have been reviewed. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the direction we've been given I doubt it would be reversed.

I wasn't thinking about the hit today but rather in any case where an official makes the wrong call, the mistake can be minimized. I didn't know about the review process when it carries over to the next game. I thought that was automatic. Hopefully this is at all levels of college football.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

[Hammersmith]

I wasn't thinking about the hit today but rather in any case where an official makes the wrong call, the mistake can be minimized. I didn't know about the review process when it carries over to the next game. I thought that was automatic. Hopefully this is at all levels of college football.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4
I'm pretty sure I heard about a week 1 ejection being reversed for some FBS player(the week 2, 1st half part of it). Don't recall hearing which team or conference.


edit: A quick google check shows it was Chris McCain of Cal that was the player, and it was the Pac-12 that overturned it. Must be a conference by conference thing.

[Hammersmith]

I'm pretty sure I heard about a week 1 ejection being reversed for some FBS player(the week 2, 1st half part of it). Don't recall hearing which team or conference.


edit: A quick google check shows it was Chris McCain of Cal that was the player, and it was the Pac-12 that overturned it. Must be a conference by conference thing.
I should have read the rest of the article;

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/09/ncaas_new_targeting_rule_resul.html


A panel from College Football Officiating LLC, headed by Redding, has some authority to overturn targeting fouls in games where replay is not present. That mostly would impact Football Championship Subdivision, Division II and Division III games.

In the case of McCain's hit, "we treated it like a game under normal circumstances that doesn't have replay," Redding said.

Redding said the CFO panel received only one request by a conference for a review. Redding did not have targeting ejection numbers on FCS, D-II and D-III games.

*Redding is national coordinator of officials

[MAKBison]

Do like they did in rugby, make a rule that says when you make a tackle you have to control them to the ground. This would eliminate the big blow up hits and ensure you wrap up every play.


The reason the rules committee (made up of coaches and not officials BTW) has increased the penalty for targeting is because the game we love is under attack. Concussions are a huge concern and past attempts to get players to remove the head from the game have not worked. If they aren't able to get players to change technique, football could eventually go the way of boxing. Youth leagues are starting to see major reductions in participation already. The popularity of the game will sustain it for awhile, but if behaviors aren't changed it could be in significant jeopardy. None of us want to see that. You have to accept the possibility of some cracked eggs when addressing this.

If anyone has any other ideas to get players to tackle properly I'd love to hear them.

Also, the rule is there to protect the tackler as much as it is the opponent. They are just as susceptible to head injuries as the guy receiving the hit.

[MAKBison]

They can already do that!


[QUOTE=LITTLEGUYSINGREEN;761880]

Maybe the answer is an appeal process where a coach can submit video evidence to the ncaa and the next game penalty can be challenged. If there is undeniable evidence then make the appeal. There would have to be some sort of negative consequence if the coach wasted their time. I don't know what that would be because it can't be more punishment for the involved player. Lose a scholarship next year? At least then only very well defined misjudgment would be challenged.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

[MAKBison]

NCAA wide rule....It does not necessarily carry over to the next game, It caries over to the next half of football. Thus if the hit is in the first half you are out for the rest of the half and all of the secound half of that game. If it occurs in the second half you are out for the rest of the game and the first half of the next game. Also, If the hit occured in the second half of a game it can be reviewed an overturned prior to the next game. At least that is how I have heard it explained on two different channels now


I wasn't thinking about the hit today but rather in any case where an official makes the wrong call, the mistake can be minimized. I didn't know about the review process when it carries over to the next game. I thought that was automatic. Hopefully this is at all levels of college football.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

[A1pigskin]

At this rate we will be watching flag football in 10yrs

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I played flag football in sixth grade 35 years ago and there were still some heads getting hurt (concussions).

[Rockbear99]

Just watched the play several times. Bullshit ejection. That was a good football hit. Officials wrong again. From what I saw he was not head hunting

[Hammerhead]

From what I remember, the Ferris State player took a few steps after catching the ball so he wasn't defenseless. Was there contact made with the crown of his helmet?

Here's the definition of targeting I could find on the interweb:

• No player shall target and initiate contact vs. opponent with the crown of his helmet.
• No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent

[BadlandsBison]

So if don't eliminate concussions, football will cease to exist?

[imabison]

From what I remember, the Ferris State player took a few steps after catching the ball so he wasn't defenseless. Was there contact made with the crown of his helmet?

Here's the definition of targeting I could find on the interweb:

• No player shall target and initiate contact vs. opponent with the crown of his helmet.
• No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent

After seeing it again during the Coach Bohl, and it was discussed by Bohl. I think Bohl agreed with the penalty, but not the ejection.
Review for ejection possibility is not something in the MVFC rules.

[MAKBison]

It is reviewable post game just not during the game.


After seeing it again during the Coach Bohl, and it was discussed by Bohl. I think Bohl agreed with the penalty, but not the ejection.
Review for ejection possibility is not something in the MVFC rules.

[Gully]

So what exactly did he do wrong? It did not look to me like he lead with his helmet. It did not look like he hit the other player in the helmet. The receiver took a couple of steps after catching the ball so he shouldn't have been defenseless. It looked to me like he lead with his shoulder and hit other player in the chest or shoulder area.

If what they want is for every violent hit to be a penalty, then just say that and make that the rule.

Maybe I'm missing something.

[imabison]

So what exactly did he do wrong? It did not look to me like he lead with his helmet. It did not look like he hit the other player in the helmet. The receiver took a couple of steps after catching the ball so he shouldn't have been defenseless. It looked to me like he lead with his shoulder and hit other player in the chest or shoulder area.

If what they want is for every violent hit to be a penalty, then just say that and make that the rule.

Maybe I'm missing something.

I don't recall did he Shepard "leave his feet to make the hit"

[The_Sicatoka]

Football at all levels had better adjust or the "kinder, gentler world" forces will force change on it.

My solution? Leather helments plus.

- All gear has to be cotton, wool, or leather.
- No plastics (helmets, or plates in shoulder or thigh pads).
- No metal buckles except for the chin strap.
- Small rivets to connect pieces together would be the only metal allowed.

Basically, as some have said, rugby.

[missingnumber7]

I don't recall did he Shepard "leave his feet to make the hit"He launched.

[SDbison]

These new rules are plain fucking stupid. Refs over reaction should be reviewed and they should give up their pay and be suspended for any wrong calls. Tired of some do gooders always messing with American life in the name of safety. c

[SDbison]

He launched. So ball carriers never launch?

[MAKBison]

I dont think we need to go and change the equipment at all.....just adopt the rugby rule of having to control the tackle to the ground. You would eliminate blow up hits and force everyone to wrap up. My Kiwi neighbor says that did the trick and eliminated all sorts of injuries in rugby. I did not look it up, but it seems logical!



Football at all levels had better adjust or the "kinder, gentler world" forces will force change on it.

My solution? Leather helments plus.

- All gear has to be cotton, wool, or leather.
- No plastics (helmets, or plates in shoulder or thigh pads).
- No metal buckles except for the chin strap.
- Small rivets to connect pieces together would be the only metal allowed.

Basically, as some have said, rugby.

[SDbison]

how about they leave the game alone. For real nasty hits eject the player (thug) for several games and second offense ban from football. Typical over-reaction by the control freak rule makers. Thanks for wrecking American football.

[VanClubPres]

Way off topic,

How is it that when a player (Calvin Johnson) can catch a ball in the air, cross the plane of the goal line, but lose it when he come down for a no catch, and a player (Reggie Bush or Bell) can dive at the goal line, break the plane and have a helmet knock the ball loose, but ruled a touchdown.

It just seems like there is a little discrepancy regarding possession.

[MAKBison]

IDK The more we learn about head injuries the more sense it makes. If you can make some minor tweaks and keep the integrity of the game, I say go for it. There is precedent. Its not like we play with the original rules these days anyways.



how about they leave the game alone. For real nasty hits eject the player (thug) for several games and second offense ban from football. Typical over-reaction by the control freak rule makers. Thanks for wrecking American football.

[Ndsu84]

Just saw in the cowboys game while reading this thread why we need great helmets. Two tacklers bout killed each other by accident and might have with leather. I wish I was a good enough athlete to have played bison football but I'm already sore as hell everyday with not much mind left the way it is. Ha!

[SDbison]

IDK The more we learn about head injuries the more sense it makes. If you can make some minor tweaks and keep the integrity of the game, I say go for it. There is precedent. Its not like we play with the original rules these days anyways. In your mind......go play soccer if you are afraid of head injuries.

[MAKBison]

My playing days are long gone.

So are saying we should get ride of all the rules over the years that were made in the name of safety ? Go back to using the gridiron i suppose. Freaking safety freaks ruined the game when eliminated open field the cut blocks didn't they---just ruining the game when they change if in the name of player safety.

If its an issue you address it and concussion are a serious issue. Don't think so, the NFL players seem to think so....At least their union thinks so.

What you fail to realize is that if you do not address an issue as serious as brain damage (which BTW is what a concussion is) the sport will die on the vine as parents say no to their children playing.


In your mind......go play soccer if you are afraid of head injuries.

[IndyBison]

Way off topic,

How is it that when a player (Calvin Johnson) can catch a ball in the air, cross the plane of the goal line, but lose it when he come down for a no catch, and a player (Reggie Bush or Bell) can dive at the goal line, break the plane and have a helmet knock the ball loose, but ruled a touchdown.

It just seems like there is a little discrepancy regarding possession.

The difference is Calvin Johnson does not complete the catch until he survives contact with the ground if he's going to the ground in the process of completing the catch. A runner already has possession. If you don't like the Calvin Johnson call you can blame instant replay 100%. I'm a fan of IR but the one drawback is it makes some rules way too technical. It will happen to baseball too when swipe tags and quick turns at second base. They are going to have frame by frame view to see if the runner touched a base before the tag was applied. While technically right is it really critical to be THAT precise?

[IndyBison]

In your mind......go play soccer if you are afraid of head injuries.

Soccer has a concussion issue as well, especially with girls. Heading a very hard ball at high speed can cause a lot of damage.

One study done by Purdue University recently found repeated minor contact by lineman was more likely to cause concussion symptoms than one solid hit in the open field. That's why many schools are reducing contact practices. It's hard to eliminate it from games, but reducing the number of times linemen butt heads in practice will reduce the number of times it happens. One idea I've heard batted around is not allowing 3-point stances by linemen.

[56BISON73]

Fundamental tackling was very noticeable at the K-state game. It obvious that they worked on it.

[The_Sicatoka]

..especially with girls. Heading a very hard ...

You just lost Tranny's focus on a football discussion.

[The_Sicatoka]

... if you do not address an issue as serious as brain damage (which BTW is what a concussion is) the sport will die on the vine as parents say no to their children playing.

Indubitably.

[IndyBison]

From what I remember, the Ferris State player took a few steps after catching the ball so he wasn't defenseless. Was there contact made with the crown of his helmet?

Here's the definition of targeting I could find on the interweb:

• No player shall target and initiate contact vs. opponent with the crown of his helmet.
• No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent

Here is the exact wording of the rules (the rule book is available publicly on the NCAA web site):

9-1-3 No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
9-1-4 No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

The penalty portion:
15 yards. For dead-ball fouls, 15 yards from the succeeding spot. Automatic first down for fouls by Team B if not in conflict with other rules. For fouls in the first half: Disqualification for the remainder of the game. For fouls in the second half: Disqualification for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next game. If the foul occurs in the second half of the last game of the season, players with remaining eligibility shall serve the suspension during the first game of the following season. The disqualification is subject to review by Instant Replay (Rule 12-3-5-f).

For games in which Instant Replay is not used: If a player is disqualified in the second half, the conference may consult the national coordinator of football officials who would then facilitate a video review. Based on the review, if the national coordinator concludes that the player should not have been disqualified, the conference may vacate the suspension. If the national coordinator supports the disqualification, the suspension for the next game will remain.

The following notes appear under the rule:

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

[td577]

Back in my day it was called "spearing". Did that rule disappear for a while?

[IndyBison]

Back in my day it was called "spearing". Did that rule disappear for a while?

HS still uses the term "spearing". By definition in HS any contact initiated with the top of your helmet is spearing. Defenseless is not a factor, offense/defense is not a factor.

This type of contact has been illegal in NCAA for at least the last 6 years but not sure if it was called "targeting" prior to that. What has changed over the years has been the philosophy about this rule. A few years ago they thought it was called too loosely and made it a point of emphasis. This didn't work so they updated the penalty to an automatic ejection. It has definitely gotten everyone's attention.

[JSUBison]

I'm watching the Alabama/A&M game, because Bama is the NDSU of FBS. :hide: Bama just got called for targeting on a very questionable flag. DB went up for the ball, and he and the WR collided. At least the booth reviewed it and didn't kick him out, but they still got the 15 yarder. I'm sure this will be on youtube soon enough.

[oldmantutters]

I'm watching the Alabama/A&M game, because Bama is the NDSU of FBS. :hide: Bama just got called for targeting on a very questionable flag. DB went up for the ball, and he and the WR collided. At least the booth reviewed it and didn't kick him out, but they still got the 15 yarder. I'm sure this will be on youtube soon enough.

Also saw this, cheering for aTm because I've met way too many overly obnoxious Bama fans in my life, bad call on the field, booth made up for it.

[LITTLEGUYSINGREEN]

I'm watching the Alabama/A&M game, because Bama is the NDSU of FBS. :hide: Bama just got called for targeting on a very questionable flag. DB went up for the ball, and he and the WR collided. At least the booth reviewed it and didn't kick him out, but they still got the 15 yarder. I'm sure this will be on youtube soon enough.

Saw this as well. Bunch of crap call and rule. There should have been no yardage allowed. Makes no sense, a no call is a no call. This rule needs to be fixed ASAP. Replay review should be required.

[westnodak93bison]

The guy was trying to intercept the ball and they still gave him a 15yd penalty? They just couldn't admit they botched the call. Why don't they mandate a foam cover on the helmet like the dude from the Buffalo Bills used to wear?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2