Targeting
- Thread starter Bwm57
- Start date
That was a bad call. A poor interpretation of the rule. It's also worth noting that hit occurred after the Duke player had touched the football. No way for the defensive player to know he was not going to catch the ball.the refs just gave Duke a huge gift.
I have absolutely no problem with the existence of the targeting rule, but it is so inconsistently applied it defies logic. I can see giving McGee a personal foul for a helmet to helmet hit, but ejecting him for targeting? I see no evidence of intent, nor of a "forcible blow."
Remember, targeting is reviewed by replay officials. There needs to be a review of the rule with either deliberate or incidental type penalties
Last edited:
Awful call. Turned the tide of the game in so many ways. We can't let it snowball like it did, but still a giant turning point.
Just for this game. If it happened in the 2nd half then he'd also need to sit for the 1st half vs. BGSU
Watching the Kansas/Central Michigan game. The Kansas D-lineman obliterated the CMU quarterback under the chin. I don't think it was intentional, yah-de-yah-da, but the play was multiples more egregious than McGee's. Yet they reviewed and ended up charging a personal foul, no targeting. They have to get this fixed. They aren't letting these players play. I don't know how you avoid the penalty the way it is called.
Fair enough. Went to graduate school at Kansas. Glutton for punishment.
Well you're in luck because the line has always been "Hit 'em hard", not "Hit 'em high". A common misconception.
All these years, I've been singing the wrong lyrics?
Not as wrong as the ones I learned back in my undergrad days.
Well, they should still change it to "Hit 'em low, hit 'em low....just as a reminder.
"Hit 'em high (but only if they are NOT in a defenseless position), hit 'em low (but not if they are NOT the quarterback standing in the pocket), Go U Northwestern!"
The rhythm may get a little tricky, but we can figure it out.
Looks like he did make contact around head high but doubt that was a targeting call.
Pretty difficult to judge intent. If it had been an NU guy getting hit in the head in any fashion I would be saying, "you simply have to coach them to lead with their facemask of avoid the contact in some other way." I'm confident that he meant no harm but if there is a threat to this wonderful sport it is head injuries.
It was obvious, he just flat ran in to the Duke player, upright, body to body. He did not lead with his head, although his helmet did make contact with the Duke player's helmet with his, simply from momentum. That's targeting? If so, they need to redefine targeting. IMHO, a really bad call, that cost us the game. We should have been able to overcome that momentum change, but with two teams otherwise pretty close to equal, that can make quite a difference. However, 42-17? What I cannot account for is why we gave up.
Almost everyone has called for the targeting rule to be redefined with incidental and intentional types. The way the rule is written currently is a joke, but it is what it is until revised.
Cost us the game is a bit of a stretch. Might have but that is the most you can say. They were manhandling us all afternoon. That sure did not help us, but cost us the game?
Cost us a bunch of momentum (i.e. wiped out a red zone turnover, let Duke put points on the board, etc.) plus a key player in an already short-handed defensive backfield. While I tend to agree that "cost us the game" is a bit of a stretch, college football is such a game of momentum that it's hard to say what could have happened if we had the ball up 3-0 with the chance to go up two scores early in the game instead of being down 7-3 less a key defensive back.
http://deadspin.com/new-mexico-quarterback-lamar-jordan-struggles-off-field-1813112053
This was borderline criminal.
This was borderline criminal.
My intent was that it put us in a position to lose the game (but not by so much). It was a triple whammy--penalty, loss of Magee, plus Duke kept the ball. It may have cost us the game, but it shouldn't have cost us the game by so much. Something else happened, maybe a number of things. Had that call not been made, we may well have won as we were playing them decently until that point and we may well have been able to keep that up, but it exposed some weakness(es).
This rule is caca . South Florida kid just got ejected on a very marginal call. You basically can't tackle anyone above the waste. Back in the day we would have no one left on the field.
Similar threads
