re: Is this not the definition of targeting?

quote:

---

He could be wrong.

But the booth ref addressed "defenseless" during the telecast.

It doesn't matter with the 3 indicators.

---

Let me explain how reading laws like this works. And this rule was written by lawyers because there is a lot of potential litigation with this stuff

The rule specifically states that the hit must be to a "defenseless" player in the very first sentence of the rule. Then in Note 1, they list indicators. Absolutely nowhere in note 1 does it rescind the requirement that the player be defenseless. There is absolutely no caveat that says, a player does not need to be defenseless if indicator 1,2 or blah blah is present.

Then in Note 2, it describes what a "defenseless" player is. Again, they fail to make any caveat about the requirement that being defenseless does not apply if certain indicators are present. They do show a "but not limited to" but that is to cover any obscure situation.

Every instance where the rule could have explicitly stated that a targeting does not require a player to be "defenseless" as explicitly set forth in the very first sentence of the rule, they do not. It just does not exist.

And I just listened to the broadcast of the play and aftermath. There was absolutely NOBODY that was a rules expert that said anything questioning targeting or whether defenseless does or does not apply. Gene Steratore is the only person that knows what he is talking about and the only rule he mentions is related to using the CROWN which is a completely separate rule. That is the only thing that came out of his mouth regarding potential penalties and "targeting" did not come out of his mouth. The only people that mentioned targeting are Nessler or Danielson who are notorious for having no clue about the rules.

UGA vs UT broacast Fast forward to 14:00 and tell me when someone other than those two bozos say "targeting".