Started By
Message
re: Is this not the definition of targeting?
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:37 pm to PeleofAnalytics
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:37 pm to PeleofAnalytics
Read your own copy/paste carefully.
Defenseless redefines the requirements for targeting. It makes it an easier call (only needs 1 indicator).
You can have targeting with 3 indicators or targeting a defenseless player with 1.
Defenseless redefines the requirements for targeting. It makes it an easier call (only needs 1 indicator).
You can have targeting with 3 indicators or targeting a defenseless player with 1.
2
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:50 pm to meansonny
quote:
Defenseless redefines the requirements for targeting. It makes it an easier call (only needs 1 indicator).
Yeah. I don't think you know how to read rules correctly. Ask someone who practices law on how to read this stuff. It is not your thing.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:47 pm to meansonny
quote:
You can have targeting with 3 indicators or targeting a defenseless player with 1.
Not exactly. Either way (defenseless or not) you only need one indicator of targeting.
If it’s not a defenseless player, the contact has to occur with the crown of the helmet for it to be targeting. But you still need at least one “indicator” - contact with the crown of the helmet alone does not necessarily equal targeting.
Typically the indicator in question would be “lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.”
If the player is defenseless, then the requirement for the offending player to make contact with the crown of the helmet goes away.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News