Morning Roundup: December 29, 2019
Yes, this was targeting:
Was this targeting? #CFBPlayoff #Clemson #OhioState #clemsonvsosu pic.twitter.com/IFy6RY9Pdp
— 4.8 40 Sports (@foureight40) December 29, 2019
People are throwing out some solutions for the targeting rule, so I might as well throw my hat into the ring as a rule maker.
A lot of people – I would venture to say most – don’t understand “targeting.” The problem, in my opinion, is the word “targeting.” It seems to imply that there has to be something intentional about it. If you go out for target practice, you’re intentionally trying to shoot at a precise spot (a hay bale, a bullseye, etc.). If a missile hits its target, yes, it was intentional.
“Targeting” in football doesn’t have anything to do with intent. You either do it or you don’t. You can’t:
- Lower your head to make contact with the crown of the helmet.
- Create forcible contact to the head/neck area.
So change the terminology. Call #1 “spearing” and call #2 “targeting” or “head-hunting” or “flibbergibbing” or whatever you want. But I’ve discovered that a lack of education on a topic causes a lot of outrage. The “powers that be” of NCAA football need to show up on a national, widely watched broadcast and explain “targeting” or “spearing” or whatever the call ends up being. They need to show examples. And those examples can be provided on Youtube, Twitter, websites, etc. anytime there’s a question about “targeting.”
I’m glad LSU and Clemson are the two representatives in the national championship game. I’ll be rooting for LSU.
Meast ‼️ @tress_justin @CoachBenHerbert @TankWright pic.twitter.com/2jSwcHOQXl
— Josh Uche (@_Uche35) December 28, 2019
