Three Minnesota Players Ejected for Targeting

Submitted by daa browns on

I do not know if this topic has already been discussed, but after watching replays of the hits...all three looked like legitimate targets.  None of them seemed to be Joe Bolden-esque, and seemed to deserve an ejection....

I was just curious on your guys' thoughts on the calls?

MGoBoard
Football

uncle leo

September 2nd, 2016 at 2:54 PM ^

Minnesota looks pretty bad. I don't know what people saw in Mitch Leidner in the off-season. Dude can't throw the ball. He's basically like Jared Lorenzen-lite without the arm.

Joined: 07/29/2012

MGoPoints: 34636

uncle leo

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:10 PM ^

The Minnesota QB back in 2005 I think? He had three names, he was super fast. I believe it was the Friday night game where Navarre had that throw-back 50 plus yard reception TD.

We had them stopped to a 4th and 1, and he basically just broke through a goal line formation and ran the entire field for a TD.

Joined: 07/29/2012

MGoPoints: 34636

Yo_Blue

September 2nd, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^

The refs are finally catching up with those bastards.  After the un-called targeting against Shane two years ago and then against a sliding Jake last year, i have no sympathy.  Throw those headhunting thugs out.

Joined: 08/24/2010

MGoPoints: 102594

Wolverine In Iowa 68

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:02 PM ^

I was discussing this with a coworker this morning.  We both agreed, they all looked like legit targeting calls, and Leidner is a run-first QB with limited throwing abilities.  Minny was one of those possible dark-horse candidates to surprise in the West, but after watching last night's game, I don't see them doing much against B1G competition.

I mean, cmong man, they barely won the Rodent Bowl last night...

Joined: 07/16/2015

MGoPoints: 55986

UMfan21

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:03 PM ^

They were all legitimate.  The gray area I see is about illegal contact "once a qb starts his slide".  It happens SO damn quick, I can see how some guys might get tossed for not being able to pull up.   But, last night, those were all legit penalties.

Joined: 09/28/2009

MGoPoints: 51224

LJ

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:05 PM ^

I agree.  I feel for the defender who leads with his helmet at the waist, the QB starts his slide, and his helmet ends up at the defender's level.  I'm not really sure how you stop that, though I'm fine with leaving the rule the way it is to limit head trauma for players.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 18306

gbdub

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:59 PM ^

Hard to tell without a video, but he has his head up (not crown first), has a foot on the ground (not a flying leap) and is aimed a little high but not above the shoulders. He's in the process of wrapping up. He should have had his head more forward of Quinn so he's taking less of a direct hit to the face, instead hitting with the cheat and shoulder.

Anyway it's not a perfect form tackle but it's also not targeting. And I'm never going to hold up Shawn Crable as a paragon of football discipline. Mostly O just like the face Brady Quinn is making.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 02/16/2010

MGoPoints: 26761

UMfan21

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:37 PM ^

Defenders should be keeping their heads up.

 

Overall, I think I'm ok with erring on the side of protecting the QB, even if it means a UofM player gets questionably ejected.....as long as the rule is applied consistently.  That's the big problem the last few years.  What gets a player tossed one game (Bolden) was not applied the same in other games.

I doubt coaches are going to be teaching QBs ways to slide in order to draw this penalty.  Too risky to have your QB taking head shots.    So, I really don't think this rule will get abused, it just needs to be consistent.

Joined: 09/28/2009

MGoPoints: 51224

Hail Harbo

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:49 PM ^

Last night the South Carolina QB, running for yardage, started to slide just as a LB was making a tackle attempt.  Happily a very good non-call was made even though helmets connected.

And BTW, will a ball carrier ever be called for leading with his helmet?  I believe the next time this is flagged will be the first time.

Joined: 06/18/2015

MGoPoints: 13428

MgoBlueprint

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:03 PM ^

Part of the issue is the new slide rule. It expanded the scope of an already flawed rule. I had an issue with the ejections for targeting because more often than not, it's not intentional. The kids are moving so fast that it's tough to stop on a Dime, pull up, or change your trajectory.

With the new slide rule, quarterbacks can slide indo a target. I could see it being employed like a charge in basketball where you're rewarded for getting to a spot vs playing defense or even worse in basketball where the shooter initiates contact (usually at the end if the game) and gets the call. Only the stakes are higher with targeting.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 12/15/2008

MGoPoints: 11575

gbdub

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:10 PM ^

Eh, I don't think it needs to be "intentional". Head to head hits are dangerous enough that if you're not intentionally avoiding head contact, I'd say it's fair to penalize you for recklessness. That's the only way we reduce dangerous hits and leading with the head. And yeah, launching yourself headfirst at a quarterback who's maybe about to start sliding is reckless.

Biggest changes I think need to be made are a) call targeting against offensive players too - RBs shouldn't get to use their helmets as battering rams and b) allow a 15yd penalty for a reversed targeting call. The hit on Rudock should have been at least 15 last year, even if it wasn't an ejection.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 02/16/2010

MGoPoints: 26761

bluinohio

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:22 PM ^

I agree with both of your points. My problem with the whole issue is you can't stop it. It happens on almost every play. But as usual they make these rules then overreact to everything. The last targeting call in the Minnesota game was not a good call in my opinion. But since their helmets touched they called it. There is helmet to helmet everywhere, you can't call everything.

Joined: 08/24/2015

MGoPoints: 10730

gbdub

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:28 PM ^

It really needs to emphasize leading with the crown of the helmet, and penalize the player that initiates the head contact.

I agree that incidental contact, particularly with the face mask or side of the helmet, or any case where a tackler is blocked into a player or is making an obvious effort to avoid a head-hit, should not be penalized.

But really, with good tackling form, hard hits to the head shouldn't happen "on almost every play", because you shouldn't be launching, you should have your eyes up, and you shouldn't be aiming at their head.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 02/16/2010

MGoPoints: 26761

Sione For Prez

September 2nd, 2016 at 3:26 PM ^

I could be wrong since targeting is harder to decipher than NFL catch rules, but I thought the referees did have the ability to still enforce a 15 yard penalty on a reversed targeting penalty. I believe if they call unnecessary roughness with targeting the 15 yard penalty stands even if the ejection does not.

Joined: 11/16/2015

MGoPoints: 10674