Called targeting on the field but overturned in the mandatory review of targeting calls.

WTF is right.

Which teams were playing in this game?

There are two rules governing targeting and the defensive player violates neither of them...

"ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."

The facemask leads the contact.

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

He's not a defenseless player in the above video. Most definitions of defenseless are limited to passers, kickers, receivers, and returners. Establishing himself as a ball carrier, he only becomes defenseless if he clearly gives up on the play (slides or steps out of bounds) or clearly has had his forward progress stopped by the grasp of another defender. Since he is still plainly fighting forward, he is not, by rule, defenseless.

And since the defender violated neither of the articles, it matters not that the defined "indicators" of targeting are present.

(10-30-2022 10:23 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  There are two rules governing targeting and the defensive player violates neither of them...

"ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."

The facemask leads the contact.

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

He's not a defenseless player in the above video. Most definitions of defenseless are limited to passers, kickers, receivers, and returners. Establishing himself as a ball carrier, he only becomes defenseless if he clearly gives up on the play (slides or steps out of bounds) or clearly has had his forward progress stopped by the grasp of another defender. Since he is still plainly fighting forward, he is not, by rule, defenseless.

And since the defender violated neither of the articles, it matters not that the defined "indicators" of targeting are present.

It sure looks like the defender made "forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."

(10-30-2022 10:15 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Which teams were playing in this game?

Western Kentucky and North Texas….

(10-30-2022 10:28 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(10-30-2022 10:23 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  There are two rules governing targeting and the defensive player violates neither of them...

"ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."

The facemask leads the contact.

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

He's not a defenseless player in the above video. Most definitions of defenseless are limited to passers, kickers, receivers, and returners. Establishing himself as a ball carrier, he only becomes defenseless if he clearly gives up on the play (slides or steps out of bounds) or clearly has had his forward progress stopped by the grasp of another defender. Since he is still plainly fighting forward, he is not, by rule, defenseless.

And since the defender violated neither of the articles, it matters not that the defined "indicators" of targeting are present.

It sure looks like the defender made "forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."

Would you buy unsportsman like penalty?

(10-30-2022 10:40 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(10-30-2022 10:28 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(10-30-2022 10:23 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  There are two rules governing targeting and the defensive player violates neither of them...

"ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."

The facemask leads the contact.

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

He's not a defenseless player in the above video. Most definitions of defenseless are limited to passers, kickers, receivers, and returners. Establishing himself as a ball carrier, he only becomes defenseless if he clearly gives up on the play (slides or steps out of bounds) or clearly has had his forward progress stopped by the grasp of another defender. Since he is still plainly fighting forward, he is not, by rule, defenseless.

And since the defender violated neither of the articles, it matters not that the defined "indicators" of targeting are present.

It sure looks like the defender made "forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."

Would you buy unsportsman like penalty?

No, but I'd accept unnecessary roughness.

Almost everything looks worse slowed down, but this is the type of play that shows what I think should be included in an expanded definition of targeting. I think more things should fall under the umbrella than already do, but I also think that the officials and replay reviewers should have leeway to not eject players committing less egregious fouls.

Targeting is a stupid rule. Great hit.

(10-30-2022 09:10 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Called targeting on the field but overturned in the mandatory review of targeting calls.

(10-30-2022 10:23 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  There are two rules governing targeting and the defensive player violates neither of them...

"ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."

The facemask leads the contact.

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

He's not a defenseless player in the above video. Most definitions of defenseless are limited to passers, kickers, receivers, and returners. Establishing himself as a ball carrier, he only becomes defenseless if he clearly gives up on the play (slides or steps out of bounds) or clearly has had his forward progress stopped by the grasp of another defender. Since he is still plainly fighting forward, he is not, by rule, defenseless.

And since the defender violated neither of the articles, it matters not that the defined "indicators" of targeting are present.

This is not the way its called. A player chasing a play who doesn't see a 'crack back' sort of block coming (say a lineman following a scrambling QB being blindsisded by a TE coming back to block is considered 'defenseless'. A WR in mid air who can't do anything to avoid a hit from say a safety coming up is considered 'defenseless'... so it's not about being a kicker... whom should never be touched by any other player for any reason anyway... lol.. but agree or not with the rule, that is the rule.

He's making a football move, so you can hit him... but you're supposed tohot the chest and shoulders or below with yours... and NEVER helmet to helmet...

Under the rules as has been interpreted this year, this is an illegal hit. Let's ignore the potential Theisman injury I see (which IS unpredictable) and just look at the hit to the head.... bu the head of the other player.

BEST you could say is that if perhaps in real life he pulled off or something, but it doesn't look like that at all in the video.

NCAA Rule 2-27-14-a defines a defenseless player as “one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless.”

People look at the newer interpretation regarding a QB who is running and waving the football like he might pass .... but that only applies to the special case of a QB looking to throw who is also running at the time. Even if he is a runner, a blindside tackle to the head would be 'defenseless'... and here, he can't defend himself from the hit because of the other tacklers.

Again, like it or not, this is 2022 football.

TIL

In addition, the “crown” of the helmet has been more clearly defined.

Quote:Tacklers who lead with the forehead of the helmet will no longer be penalized for targeting.

My guess is that this is what 'saved' him. His head was up... but I still think he went after the head of the player.

(10-30-2022 10:23 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  "ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

It seems crazy that a player is allowed to initiate forcible contact to the head of ANY opponent, defenseless or not. Initiating that sort of contact to the head should not be part of any sport.

We used to get stickers on our helmets for hits like this!!!

(10-31-2022 02:23 PM)Owlman49 Wrote:  We used to get stickers on our helmets for hits like this!!!

I know... its crazy how things have changed.