Moving On to ECU

[APPdiesel]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

There used to be a 5 yard and 15 yard facemask. Seems reasonable.

The last ejection targeting is saw was Venebles launch at Clemson, severity needs to be considered in the punishment, damn AAC refs were quick to deplete our ranks, glad we survived it.

Even if it’s up for review after the fact. Study the “football play-ness” of the call and determine if they believe malice was intended. I know that’s a difficult thing to do, and it’s highly subjective, but in the instances where a ball carrier drops, slides, ducks, etc, affecting where the hit lands, that needs to be taken into account and reinstatement needs to be on the table.

[AppSt94]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

There used to be a 5 yard and 15 yard facemask. Seems reasonable.

The last ejection targeting is saw was Venebles launch at Clemson, severity needs to be considered in the punishment, damn AAC refs were quick to deplete our ranks, glad we survived it.

Even if it’s up for review after the fact. Study the “football play-ness” of the call and determine if they believe malice was intended. I know that’s a difficult thing to do, and it’s highly subjective, but in the instances where a ball carrier drops, slides, ducks, etc, affecting where the hit lands, that needs to be taken into account and reinstatement needs to be on the table.

I do agree with you. In the specific case of Johnson. He didn’t launch nor was the QB a defenseless player.

[scatman77]

I don't want to read all the opinions of the targeting rule and penalty but speaking as an athletic trainer with 38 years' experience behind me, I can assuredly state that if the old "spearing" rule and penalty had been properly enforced beginning 30 years ago the targeting penalty would be moot. Spearing was using the helmet as a weapon to harm an opponent but officials hardly every called it. Sounds a lot like the targeting definition of today.

I do agree there needs to be a degree of penalty. First of all take into account the offensive player ducking to create the targeting situation. Once the defensive player has committed to the tackle he can't stop in mid-air if the offensive player ducks first. Make it a penalty to make contact with the helmet first; it high school that's the rule. You can't do that. Period. If you lead with your hands and arms first and then the helmet then it's not a penalty. If there is a "launch" and then helmet contact first I can see that spear/target being called.

I just want to see this wonderful game to continue to be the hard-nosed ball-busting heavy-hitting game that I know and love to watch. At this rate in 10 years we'll be watching flag football and the players wearing tutus.

[Bootsy]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

There used to be a 5 yard and 15 yard facemask. Seems reasonable.

The last ejection targeting is saw was Venebles launch at Clemson, severity needs to be considered in the punishment, damn AAC refs were quick to deplete our ranks, glad we survived it.

Yeah, I believe we had an SBC officiating crew last night…which explains a great many things.

[t4pizza]

Teach form tackling at young ages.

They have been teaching proper tackling at young ages for many many years. I was president our local youth football program when my son was a kid, that was a good 15 years ago and even back then we had clinics for coaches about proper tackling techniques. Everyone of our current App State players have been taught (or should have been) proper tackling since they were young kids. Mistakes happen in a fast paced game of football and sometimes targeting occurs, but it isn't because the players don't know how to properly tackle it is because they make mistakes.

[Saint3333]

It’s because form tackling doesn’t get the reaction a brutal hit does.

[ericsaid]

I try to avoid comments until the 4th quarter..that way I avoid looking stupider

Stupider isn’t a word…

I only jumped on because I was at the game and figured people would want to know when the next targeting review that happens 10 minutes after the play ended was initiated.

Favors ejection was egregious and should be overturned.

It is a word…FYI

No, no, no. Ain’t also isn’t a word.

Yep….got to check your Thesaurus

*more stupid

FIFY

[AtlAppMan]

On rushing
We were 2.3 ypc on 36 carries
There is no way that can be considered OK

[hapapp]

On rushing
We were 2.3 ypc on 36 carries
There is no way that can be considered OK

Same average that ODU had against them. That same ODU squad rushed for 243 yards in their loss to VT.

[Black Saturday]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

There used to be a 5 yard and 15 yard facemask. Seems reasonable.

The last ejection targeting is saw was Venebles launch at Clemson, severity needs to be considered in the punishment, damn AAC refs were quick to deplete our ranks, glad we survived it.

Yeah, I believe we had an SBC officiating crew last night…which explains a great many things.

You may be correct but I thought the games announcers said they were AAC?

[AppSt94]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

There used to be a 5 yard and 15 yard facemask. Seems reasonable.

The last ejection targeting is saw was Venebles launch at Clemson, severity needs to be considered in the punishment, damn AAC refs were quick to deplete our ranks, glad we survived it.

Yeah, I believe we had an SBC officiating crew last night…which explains a great many things.

You may be correct but I thought the games announcers said they were AAC?

The review crew was AAC I believe.

[AppSt94]

On rushing
We were 2.3 ypc on 36 carries
There is no way that can be considered OK

Maybe that was due to the defense. They have a pretty good front four.

[BUTCH1991]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

There used to be a 5 yard and 15 yard facemask. Seems reasonable.

The last ejection targeting is saw was Venebles launch at Clemson, severity needs to be considered in the punishment, damn AAC refs were quick to deplete our ranks, glad we survived it.

Yeah, I believe we had an SBC officiating crew last night…which explains a great many things.

You may be correct but I thought the games announcers said they were AAC?

They were AAC

[Bigdaddyg1]

I don’t know why it would be so difficult to simply initially “eject” a player then resume play if the call stands as a personal foul which many do even if they are not also targeting. While the game resumes let a review team determine the severity of the play. If it was malicious and if the player appeared to launch himself then that level of severity would warrant the ejection and added one half penalty. If it wasn’t deemed to be to that level let the player back into the game but any subsequent targeting would result in the immediate suspension with added penalty. The added one half rule is odd in my opinion as a guy can commit the penalty with one second to go in the first half and play the next week. The same penalty one second into the second half equates to missing two halves essentially.

[AppSt94]

I don’t know why it would be so difficult to simply initially “eject” a player then resume play if the call stands as a personal foul which many do even if they are not also targeting. While the game resumes let a review team determine the severity of the play. If it was malicious and if the player appeared to launch himself then that level of severity would warrant the ejection and added one half penalty. If it wasn’t deemed to be to that level let the player back into the game but any subsequent targeting would result in the immediate suspension with added penalty. The added one half rule is odd in my opinion as a guy can commit the penalty with one second to go in the first half and play the next week. The same penalty one second into the second half equates to missing two halves essentially.

I don’t dislike this idea in theory but it is problematic. It would however create a situation where a player is forced to sit out a few plays that could alter the game. Then there is the issue of applying the 15 yard personal foul after the fact when a penalty wasn’t called to begin with but is applied after the review.

[Bigdaddyg1]

I don’t know why it would be so difficult to simply initially “eject” a player then resume play if the call stands as a personal foul which many do even if they are not also targeting. While the game resumes let a review team determine the severity of the play. If it was malicious and if the player appeared to launch himself then that level of severity would warrant the ejection and added one half penalty. If it wasn’t deemed to be to that level let the player back into the game but any subsequent targeting would result in the immediate suspension with added penalty. The added one half rule is odd in my opinion as a guy can commit the penalty with one second to go in the first half and play the next week. The same penalty one second into the second half equates to missing two halves essentially.

I don’t dislike this idea in theory but it is problematic. It would however create a situation where a player is forced to sit out a few plays that could alter the game. Then there is the issue of applying the 15 yard personal foul after the fact when a penalty wasn’t called to begin with but is applied after the review.

I should have said that they would still initially review to determine if it’s still a personal foul but the added review determines severity. Maybe allow the player to stay then the secondary review determines severity

[Saint3333]

Josh Thomas had a good idea on the podcast this week. If there were to distinguish between a targeting call with intent or not they could add a rule that if there are two lower level penalties of that nature the second one get the player kicked out the rest of the game, similar to unsportsmanlike fouls.

[Bigdaddyg1]

Josh Thomas had a good idea on the podcast this week. If there were to distinguish between a targeting call with intent or not they could add a rule that if there are two lower level penalties of that nature the second one get the player kicked out the rest of the game, similar to unsportsmanlike fouls.

Pretty much exactly what I have said. Lots of rules are subjective- see offensive holding or PI. They already stop games for long periods for video review. I’d just separate launches versus crown of the helmet where the ball carrier may have ducked or otherwise helped to contribute to the penalty. What kills me is that it’s a personal foul call but, as in our 3rd instance they picked up the flag and it went from possible targeting to nothing. That was fortunate for us but it’s getting ridiculous at times especially when nothing is called until they review during a timeout.

[mike87]

Reduce the padding on the crown of the helmet so when you hit someone with it, it hurts and the targeting will stop.

[AppStFan1]

Josh Thomas had a good idea on the podcast this week. If there were to distinguish between a targeting call with intent or not they could add a rule that if there are two lower level penalties of that nature the second one get the player kicked out the rest of the game, similar to unsportsmanlike fouls.

Pretty much exactly what I have said. Lots of rules are subjective- see offensive holding or PI. They already stop games for long periods for video review. I’d just separate launches versus crown of the helmet where the ball carrier may have ducked or otherwise helped to contribute to the penalty. What kills me is that it’s a personal foul call but, as in our 3rd instance they picked up the flag and it went from possible targeting to nothing. That was fortunate for us but it’s getting ridiculous at times especially when nothing is called until they review during a timeout.

All these reviews for targeting already are slowing down games along with the added commercial breaks. I think separating the calls would be good except would they likely not stop to review every possible call likely happen and make games drag on even longer?

Remember when they said the clock would run before 2 minutes to try to speed up the games? They are now taking 3 hours and 29 minutes on average this year, which is 6 minutes longer than in 2023.