Targeting is not about the "crown" of the helmet.

[Palatine]

Helmet to helmet, no arm, no shoulder. About as text book as targeting gets.

If you lead with arm or shoulder (and not the helmet) it is still a penalty. The key is forcible contact with the head or neck. The disputed play was clearly a player leading with his helmet.

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

 

[Hey Adrien!]

My question is, if that wasn't targeting, then what can the NCAA do to protect players from hits like that?

 

[AzHusky]

Ok so it wasn't targeting, but my question is why was it not a 15 yard personal foul, a blow to the head?

 

[ibleedhuskyblue]

Ok so it wasn't targeting, but my question is why was it not a 15 yard personal foul, a blow to the head?

It was. It should have been both.

 

[uconnbill]

The Ref had their thumbs on the scale big time.

1. Phantom offensive face mask
2. Reversal on non/reviewable play
3. No-call chops blocks all game
4. Clear targeting reversed
5. PF on a non contact play at end of game on final possession
6. Ineligible man down reversing a first down on last possession

All made around key plays and possessions. I’d never schedule them again and file a complaint with the NCAA. That said, our O fell apart. Charlton went away from the power run game and made sone incredibly stupid calls. The freshman effect cost us big. Rosa fumble. ZT in a panic the last 2 possessions.

Hope we learn from this. Very tough loss that shouldn’t have happened.

The chops blocks were the worse I have seen in a very long time. I hate them as they injury a lineman on the defense with those dirty blocks

 

[huskymedic]

From Mora’s Sunday Media Availability:

 

[Devland]

Just a note. Chop blocks are legal as long as they are from the front and the player being chopped block is not engaged with another player.

 

[Edward Sargent]

Even the announcers said it was obvious but didn't say anything when it was overturned.

Announcers refocused on the crown as the reason for overturning the call

 

[Edward Sargent]

On another note is Turner ok?

 

[2Infinity]

Announcers refocused on the crown as the reason for overturning the call

The TV color guy originally said it was a "textbook" example of targeting. Then after it was overturned, he got hung up on "crown of the helmet", as the replay official did, even though the graphic they highlighted clearly indicated that using the crown of the helmet was just one way to get a targeting call.

Although these are not all the indicators of targeting, here are some defined by the NCAA rulebook:*

• 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

*College football's targeting and related ejection rules, explained

The highlighted third definition seems to fit the play we witnessed. It says nothing about using the crown of the helmet. Not sure how that definition could be overturned.

 

[UCan3]

You know what I find especially shocking about the referees overturning this one? The player didn’t actually try to tackle, notice no arms around player? He was intentionally trying to inflict a head trauma on our player. Doubt me? Watch the video again. If they were to show a video on clear cases of targeting, they could always use this clip.