Started By
Message

re: Is this not the definition of targeting?

Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:56 pm to
Posted by meansonny
ATL
Member since Sep 2012
25999 posts
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:56 pm to
Agree to disagree.
Facemask down and the contact is the crown (top of the helmet).

Remember. This is to prevent neck injuries to the defender.
Posted by TigerLunatik
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Jan 2005
93940 posts
Posted on 11/14/22 at 1:01 pm to
quote:

the contact is the crown (top of the helmet).

Jesus the crown of the helmet has been defined in the thread and the defender didn't use the apex of the helmet.
Posted by ALhunter
Member since Dec 2018
2971 posts
Posted on 11/14/22 at 2:06 pm to
quote:

Agree to disagree.
Facemask down and the contact is the crown (top of the helmet).

Remember. This is to prevent neck injuries to the defender.


There's no "agree to disagree" here... you're viewing this through black and red glasses. The officials reviewed it and there are plenty of incredibly clear angles and photos of the hit. The NCAA clarified what the "crown" of the helmet is specifically so hits like this wouldn't be targeting.

If this is targeting then there would be 10-15 targeting penalties per game as runners fight for an extra yard or two at the end of runs.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 2:19 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter