UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion

[marenlee]

There is a Forum article (i don't have subscription so I can't read) where Entz said the league told him the no call was wrong. I have not seen anything publicly from the league but we don't know what they said. I've seen situations where a league stated something like "we would have supported targeting" and the coach twisted that to say the call on the field was wrong

It's very possible the league said this should have been called. It's close but depends entirely on how you interpret the crown of the helmet. His facemask and the forehead part of the helmet is what appears to make contact. We've been told the forehead is part of the crown. What I'm not clear on is if the forehead plus part of the top is what they meant (this is how it was always given as an example) or if a hit that includes only the forehead and facemask is also sufficient for 9-1-3 targeting (initiating with crown).

I've shared this with several college officials and the responses based entirely on the guidance they've received on the crown is different. The action the defender had of just trying to blow up a defender rather than tackle him is dangerous and part of what targeting and blindside blocks are trying to reduce. That's why I'm ok if they want this called as targeting. I'm just not 100% certain this meets the current definition. If this is targeting any tackle that includes the facemask and forehead could be targeting. Do we really want that?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Coach Entz talked about it in the Monday press conference. Available on Youtube. I can't post the link since it's blocked at work.

[IndyBison]

Didnt we used to have a thing called spearing? Or is that something else?

Using the crown was spearing. It became targeting though.

He did not lower his head though. If you look at the video he initiates contact most with the facemask and the forehead area of the helmet. Lowering the head is when they are looking at the ground when they hit. He's looking at what he's hitting.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[EC8CH]

Oh please, he lowered his head. Why is the "forehead" any less dangerous than apparently the extreme top of a helmet when launching at another player's head? So hard in fact it spins the player 180 degrees in the air before hitting the ground.

[ByeSonBusiness]

I've shared this with several college officials and the responses based entirely on the guidance they've received on the crown is different. The action the defender had of just trying to blow up a defender rather than tackle him is dangerous and part of what targeting and blindside blocks are trying to reduce. That's why I'm ok if they want this called as targeting. I'm just not 100% certain this meets the current definition. If this is targeting any tackle that includes the facemask and forehead could be targeting. Do we really want that?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Welll welll welll......its almost like someone told the board that if that was targetting...then there will be wayyyy too many targeting calls.

[ByeSonBusiness]

Lowered head, hit helmet to helmet, launched with both feet off the ground, hit hard enough to spin Watson 180 degrees. Targeting. All day. Every day.

Have you played football?

[EC8CH]

Have you played football?

Yeah. What's your point?

[CAS4127]

Using the crown was spearing. It became targeting though.

He did not lower his head though. If you look at the video he initiates contact most with the facemask and the forehead area of the helmet. Lowering the head is when they are looking at the ground when they hit. He's looking at what he's hitting.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

So it’s spearing then?

And you can see his eyes?

Mine are rolling right now.

For the record, I hate the targeting rule, as it’s rare for a player to actually do so intentionally, but, if it’s gonna be a rule, then call it correctly.

[EC8CH]

So it’s spearing then?

And you can see his eyes?

Mine are rolling right now.

For the record, I hate the targeting rule, as it’s rare for a player to actually do so intentionally, but, if it’s gonna be a rule, then call it correctly.

You can see plays where players adjust their technique to avoid helmet to helmet collisions. That's the point of the targeting rule, to change tackling technique. In this case the player has the opportunity to use a safer technique, instead of leading with a shoulder he launched head first into another player's head.

[NodakGreg]

9.) The prevent offense is a chess move so far above all of our heads that it just shows how TR is absolutely brilliant.

This is fantastic humor. U made me lol. Damn good comment. An absolute slam in the driest way on our worst OC in 10 years, regressing in creativity, but yet, did do a good job for 3 qtrs then prevent offense came back into play in 4th qtr.
I don't know if college is different then the pros. But we all saw how the colts lost playing to lose in 4th play calling, but Gosh darn it, PLAY TO WIN DAMN IT! FOOT on THE GAS AND FINISH!
So tired of killing the clock attitude when we a simple10 or 14 point lead!!

[ByeSonBusiness]

Yeah. What's your point?

Football is a fast game. You got three guys running full speed.

Guy #1 catches the ball.
Guy #2 initiates a tackle and begins to bring him down.
Guy #3 is going to tackle Guy #2 who begins to go down and ends up hitting him in the head but not in a malicious way by any standard.

If thats targeting, they need to call it about 5 times a game at least. At the very least, the spirit of the rule is not intended to penalize that play. Its supposed to stop the Vontaze Burfict's of the world. Not a play like that.