Targeting is not about the "crown" of the helmet. | Page 2 | The Boneyard

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,263
Messages
4,560,459
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom