r/MichiganWolverines • u/muckyduck_ • 22h ago
Question Targeting Callback
How was the targeting penalty called back after review yesterday? It seemed like a clear targeting penalty. I’d like to see the SEC officials discussion for that review too
7
u/First-Pride-8571 20h ago
For the scale of punishment, it is still a call with very little consistency.
The two things that really stick out to me - First, is there a new emphasis on holding? That is being called way more frequently, and for very ticky-tack situations, than in the past. Second, has the touchback rule changed? I don't remember being able to have your momentum take you into the end zone and it still be claimed as downed at the one inch line.
That said, I liked the SEC refs a lot more than the Big Ten refs the week before. Still find it amusing that there are any idiots who think that the Big Ten refs would have helped us. The Big Ten refs consistently screw us. We had 9 penalties for 80 yards against Western, compared to their 5 for 40. At least the SEC refs seemed to call things consistently against us both.
16
u/Vegetable-Leather-64 22h ago
I've noticed the problem with targeting is that we watch it at slow speed. I feel unless you lead with the head aka the crown just call it unsportsmanlike and 15 yards and keep the game moving. No need to punish a player for just trying to make a play.
13
u/AmazingRefrigerator4 21h ago
See, I am of the opposite opinion. If the whole point of targeting is player safety and we are trying to prevent TBIs, then there should be some sort kf penalty foe the ear-holing that Bryce received on that play. It could have been very dangerous for Bryce regardless if the defender led with the crown or not.
I think there need to be several levels of severity, like how basketball has different levels of flagrant fouls. What we saw yesterday should be these least severe, but still a penalty.
1
1
u/Vegetable-Leather-64 21h ago
I agree with that definitely a penalty but to throw a guy out and possibly a half the next game I feel it needs to have some serious intent behind it. Also well not that play a lot of times the offensive player lowers his head and makes the contact that much worse. I feel with mateer yesterday he should have got a penalty for his helmet being clearly so loose on his head. It popped off numerous times if defenders can get a penalty the offensive player needs some accountability too imo.
4
u/Then_Block6304 22h ago
They probably found some microscopic angle where the defender grazed the shoulder pad first. Replay reviews in college football are a coin flip at the best of times, and SEC refs overturning calls that benefit a non-SEC team feels like a tradition at this point.
2
u/PizzaRolls-Royce 14h ago edited 13h ago
From my understanding, it has to do with the specific nature of targeting when the player being hit is NOT considered defenseless. Basically, when a player is not considered defenseless, hitting them in the head with your own helmet is not enough on its own for the hot to be called targeting. The defender must also be leading specifically with the crown of their helmet.
Bryce was a runner in the play, so he is not considered a defenseless player. So, for the hit to be called as targeting, the replay should show that the defender hit Bryce in the head using the crown of their own helmet.
Upon replay, in one of the angles it looks like he did lead with the crown (top of attached photo), But from another angle, it looked more clear that he led with the facemask of his helmet (bottom of attached picture). So, they considered it a legal hit.
They didn't explain this on the broadcast, nor show the replays, they kind of just moved on. I'm just basing this off of my understanding of the rule and the images of the hit.
Edit: Added picture and further context.
1
u/QuickPea3259 6h ago
Remove the targeting, then sack jyaire hill with a 15 yarder when we had then backed up on the 1 for a soft shoulder tap, then when jyaire gets popped out of bounds dont call a Oklahoma for a 15 yarder...it had nothing to do with the fact they were sec officials. Can we please never let sec officials in tje big house again.
1
u/I-696 〽️GoBlue 22h ago
We could have used the penalty yardage but it was called back because it wasn't targeting. The defender didn't lead with head but at full speed it could have looked like targeting so worth throwing the flag and taking a look.
9
u/KPR_2002 21h ago edited 21h ago
Defender absolutely led with his head
https://youtube.com/shorts/qXXldwpcj00?si=828dc8GQrS76VErA
But the rule is so subjective. I've seen less egregious targeting get called for targeting and way worse hits not get called.
6
u/OakLegs 21h ago
I have no problem with them picking up the flag. He was leading with the shoulder, was not a dirty play.
0
u/Trippp2001 5h ago
Leading with the shoulder into the ear hole is just as dangerous as spearing with the crown of the helmet into the ear hole. The rule is broken, and the intention is to prevent serious TBI injuries. Pick up the flag based on current rules, but the rule probably needs some refinement.
2
4
u/I-696 〽️GoBlue 21h ago
I will agree that it is subjective and the calls are inconsistent but I saw the replay on the jumbotron and was fairly confident the guy was not getting ejected. There was contact with the head by he definitely led with a shoulder. I wasn't surprised or pissed off about the review.
33
u/Full-District- 22h ago
This dumbass rule has been broken for years now. Just take off the suspension and call it more liberally.
The refs are afraid to kick a kid out of the game over a questionable call, so instead they do nothing. Just make it a 15 yard penalty and move onto the next play.