Definitely! Players don't usually do this kind of thing because they are jerks or they are dirty. They are just trying to hit somebody and don't understand the danger (he's just as likely to hurt himself as his opponent with this hit). I definitely wouldn't think less of him because of one illegal hit. When you are on the field you often pick up on the guys that are actually trouble and it's very rarely a surprise when you give the coach a heads up. His teammates will often give it away also. I'll ask the center, "so is #74 often difficult." He usually responds with an eye roll and something like, "he's an idiot and gets in trouble every week." Some guys are just too amped up and don't play with an intelligent filter. It's usually just a matter of time before they do something to get them in trouble. One play usually doesn't define that though.
Can't this discussion be move to a different thread title vice continuing to carry it on a Recruit Named thread?
You wanta play football, any school will do; ... You wanta learn football, NDSU is for you!
Plays happen so fast that I really doubt most targeting fouls are intentional.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
When it's third and ten, you can take the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -Max McGee
“I really thought you had to run the football to control the game,” Erhardt once said. “You had to throw the football to score but had to run the football to win.” - Ron Erhardt
I disagree because most of them involve a player taking several steps to the block or tackle. The intentional part is usually because the defender is trying to hit the defender rather than tackle them. It's not an absolute but for the most part if you try to tackle the runner rather than just hit the runner, you usually don't commit targeting. The really dumb ones are with the crown of the helmet into a guy already on the ground. You don't even need to touch him and can easily avoid that specific contact.
Targeting fouls are intended to change a behavior and get players to tackle rather than hit. I haven't seen data that shows the number of targeting fouls year over year so I have no idea if it's actually working to change that behavior. On blocks most targeting occurs on the blindside hits after a change of possession or the receiver coming back to block on a sweep. If they make those blindside blocks illegal you'll likely see a lot less targeting there as well.
Guess not. Just wondering how continuing the discussion in the name of DJ Baptist helps retention and recruiting. I guess you all know best. Or personal point scoring is more important that recruiting and retention to BV.
I guess DJ Baptist is supposed to believe that any press is better than no press even when BV folks suggest you created cheap shot.
LET IT GO and CLOSE THIS THREAD! Please.
You wanta play football, any school will do; ... You wanta learn football, NDSU is for you!
I'll start by saying I am concerned about my son playing tackle football with all we know, especially when he gets older...that said...
I watched the video, and I think the challenge I and others on here have, is that the more penalties are based on degree of force used, it makes penalties much more of a subjective call than an objective one. If your block sends someone back a yard is that too harsh?, two yards? To the ground? Or are you trying judge intent? What if in the videos the runners had cut or circled back and the lightly blocked player then made the tackle...the coach will tell their players to block harder the next time. It just seems like there is so much more subjectivity in rules for refs which leads to inconsistency and refs impacting game outcomes on really gray area judgments. For example, how many actual non-aggregious (I realize that's not a rulebook term) hits on the qb were personal foul flags this year in the nfl - I saw quite a few and they were sometimes game deciders.
Last edited by yopaulie; 02-20-2019 at 01:04 AM.