re: that no targeting call clearly show us just how officiating can determine a national title

quote:

---

The rule book does not state this although it is implied they will make a call based off of video replay.

The rulebook clearly gives examples for guidelines, and one guideline clearly stated “ Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area”.

Based off the replay, he clearly led with the helmet into a defenseless player. It’s indisputable. There should be no other determination based off the rulebook. It’s clear guidance in this case. The rulebook does not imply intent or is it needed in this case. The rulebook is clear.

---

I’ve already quoted the language, but I’ll post it again I guess. Rule 12-3-5-a:

quote:

---

Targeting
ARTICLE 5 a. The replay official shall review all targeting fouls, Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. For a player to be disqualified and the Targeting foul to be enforced, all elements of a Targeting foul must be confirmed by the Instant Replay Official. There is no option for stands as a part of a Targeting review. If any element of Targeting cannot be confirmed, then the Replay Official shall overturn the targeting foul.
Targeting elements include:

. . .

Rule 9-1-4:
(a) A defenseless opponent (Rule 2-27-14).
(b) A player takes aim at a defenseless opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area.
(c) An indicator of targeting is present.

---

quote:

---

Also, it makes no difference at what point in the game the infraction happened. A foul is a foul.

---

Exactly but I bet it gets called had it transpired in the first quarter.

Someone will have to explain this to me: I thought forcible contact to a defenseless player in the head and neck area was a personal foul if done with helmet, arm ,shoulder or whatever ! Targeting could be added if the player did it with crown of helmet , or by jumping / launching : with malicious intent etc etc .

quote:

---

That hit used to be praised and celebrated. I remember Steve Sabols voice over the video showing the hard hits that were the talk of the game. It was how football was meant to be played.

---

look, I'm an old school, traditional guy. But brain injury is a real thing, so some rules to protect players is fine with me.

Now, we just need to make sure the rules make sense and are correctly interpreted/enforced.

But having some rules to add safety to the game is appropriate, especially considering players are much bigger, stronger, and faster than they were 30-40 years ago.

quote:

---

(b) A player takes aim at a defenseless opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area.

---

This really is the heart of the issue here. I see people saying there doesn’t have to be intent, but the very name of the foul “targeting” implies intent. The dictionary definition of the verb target is to select as an object of attack or to aim. Both selecting something to attack or aiming at something requires intent.

So, the crux of the issue is did he aim to attack him with his head? I think the answer to that question is most likely no. He didn’t lower his head to attack, he didn’t use the crown, and he didn’t aim his helmet at his body. Unless you think he planned to knock the receiver to the ground by means of helmet-to-helmet contact or he missed where he was aiming, I don’t see any conclusive evidence he was trying to use his helmet as a primary means of attack. Enforcement of the penalty requires proving that element existed.

I think people have the concept of leading with the helmet very wrong in this thread. It doesn’t mean that the first point of contact is the head. It means that the player is intending to hit the opponent with the focus of the attack and the primary force coming from the helmet. That’s not at all what happened here. He tries to wrap him up with his arms and make shoulder-to-shoulder contact. The helmet-to-helmet contact was incidental.

It doesn’t have to be intent. No where in the rules is there anything about interpretation. It’s clear in The rules. It’s targeting

I’m posting the full section so yall can read it. You have to read note 1 and then the examples of note 1. These examples make it clear what you are looking for in forcible contact to the head that goes beyond a legal tackle. I already gave you the example that makes it clear: “ Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area”

Rule 9 - Conduct of Players and Others Subject to the Rules

Section 1. Personal Fouls

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area

A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area

Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.

A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.

A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

A player on the ground.

A player obviously out of the play.

A player who receives a blind-side block.

A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.

A quarterback any time after a change of possession

A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst.

No you added words. But whatever. The rules clearly states the example of targeting, but if you can’t see it then it is what it is. That’s why the rule was misinterpreted. The referee screwed it up. They need to do away with targeting because the rules are clear in this situation, and if people want to INTERPRET their version when it’s clearly stated in this case, then the rule needs to be trashed

quote:

---

No you added words.

---

No, I didn’t.