| FTBL I'm still shocked at how blatant this targeting foul was Sunday night.

[SoCalPatrick]

These are things you can't just correct overnight. It's flat out no discipline.

 

[sk33tr]

Must agree. He went in helmet first, no hands up, launched himself.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

At some point, you have to wonder if suspensions may work their way into the punishment for flagrant hits like this.

 

[rick4bama]

You can tell he target him from the start. He lower his head and aim!

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

There was one against GA Tech that I think shows why targeting is badly written and enforced. Clemson ball carrier tucked his head about halfway through the GT player tucking his and aiming for the chest. They went helmet to helmet so GT gets ejected.

 

[OldPlayer]

I like how the Florida State QB starts moving his arm for a flag before he stops rolling.

 

[BamaFan334]

There was one against GA Tech that I think shows why targeting is badly written and enforced. Clemson ball carrier tucked his head about halfway through the GT player tucking his and aiming for the chest. They went helmet to helmet so GT gets ejected.

Yep, and this is why Clemson was handed the game in my mind. They tried calling targeting I believe three times against Tech, and not once against Clemson.

 

[Davestwin]

There was one against GA Tech that I think shows why targeting is badly written and enforced. Clemson ball carrier tucked his head about halfway through the GT player tucking his and aiming for the chest. They went helmet to helmet so GT gets ejected.

I couldn’t agree more. The LSU player deserved being ejected even if there wasn’t a targeting rule. The the GT player didn’t. Full disclosure, I absolutely hate the targeting rule even though I know it’s here to stay. For one thing, just about any elite athlete can be a great receiver now. There’s zero fear about going across the middle and that’s what used to separate the great ones from everyone else.

 

['65 Cobra]

You'd think a Kelly coached team would be better disciplined than that - or at least that's what they would have us think.

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

Full disclosure, I absolutely hate the targeting rule even though I know it’s here to stay.

I think it has a lot of room for improvement. It needs to apply to defender and ball carrier both. Eitehr both are out and it is offsetting so replay down from previous spot or it is no foul.

 

[sk33tr]

There was one against GA Tech that I think shows why targeting is badly written and enforced. Clemson ball carrier tucked his head about halfway through the GT player tucking his and aiming for the chest. They went helmet to helmet so GT gets ejected.

I thought the rule stated "against a defenseless player".....?

The video you posted, there was NO defenseless player. The running back KNEW the hit was coming, hence why he lowered his head, just like the defender.

And I'd like to hear an explanation from the rules committee on why it's bad for a defender to do it, but not the ball carrier, especially if they do the exact same thing as the defender. The defender can get hurt just as easily as the ball carrier; but they seem to be overlooking that fact.

Now if he's truly defenseless, as in he doesn't see the defender coming and gets blindsided by a hit to the head with the defenders helmet? Then, yes, that's targeting. But when they BOTH lower their heads in anticipation of the hit, that's not targeting in my eyes.