Targeting
- Thread starter IceCyIce
- Start date
I think they have finally figured out that on quite a few of these targeting calls there is no intent and if say a runner dips his head right before a hit there is nothing the defender running at full speed can do to avoid the contact. If you want to call a penalty fine but there shouldn't be ejections on bang-bang plays where there is zero ill intent.
Targeting is the worst rule in college football. Nobody understands it. Even the rules “experts” get the replay wrong most of the time
I think its pretty easy to tell from a replay if someone is head hunting. This very rarely is the case as nobody wants to get kicked out of a game. If someone is deliberately trying to injure with an illegal hit kick him out of the game but this is almost always not the case.
I’ve seen at least three obvious targeting penalties in SEC games this year and they were all waved off. It’s huge problem that not all conferences are playing by the same set of rules.
I get what you saying, however on that play, the PSU player was head hunting.
Honestly it looks nasty but the runner isn’t defenseless and he I think just barely doesn’t use the crown.
If they want to define this imaginary area to be the crown of the helmet, they need to have that area defined on the helmet. Have a contrasting color on the crown if this 6” area is so critical to the rule and causes so much confusion.
He’s wrong but ultimately it didn’t matter. That was textbook targeting. He clearly leads with his helmet. I really think they need to make a targeting call that is just 15 yards and a targeting that includes an ejection. I get that adds subjectiveness to the call but the variance between ejection plus 15 yards and nothing is to much.
Has to be crown in that case though and to me that looks more like forehead.
Or enforce the rules that have been on the books for a long time ?
Spearing (gridiron football) - Wikipedia
Psu play looks like targeting. Led with helmet to offensive players helmet. Intent or not to hit him in the head he led with helmet which is what rule is supposed to discourage
During ISU game I think cyclones defender actually got his arm in there to make contact first and his helmet did not strike Arizona players head straight on
During ISU game I think cyclones defender actually got his arm in there to make contact first and his helmet did not strike Arizona players head straight on
I thought targeting didn't HAVE to be helmet-to-helmet. Any forceable contact to the head or neck, even if first contact comes with the shoulder or arm.
If it is a defenseless player that is true. For a runner, you cannot lead with the crown of your helmet.
I think the change to define this crown may be newer than the original targeting penalty. Cause the PSU player would have been targeting under the old rules where it was basically anywhere on the top of the helmet.
