Started By
Message

re: Is this not the definition of targeting?

Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:38 pm to
Posted by southernboisb
Member since Dec 2012
7357 posts
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:38 pm to
The crown of the helmet hitting the body or underside of helmet...yes.

In that pic...judgement call.
Posted by lsufball19
Franklin, TN
Member since Sep 2008
65298 posts
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:42 pm to
quote:

The crown of the helmet hitting the body or underside of helmet...yes.


See my edit. this is what you don't understand...what the crown of the helmet is. To save time for you having to look back and read, here it is again
quote:

Namely, I don't think you know how "crown of the helmet" is defined within the rule. You take the very top/center of the helmet and draw a 6 inch radius around that spot. If the player isn't defenseless, which Bennet was not, then contact has to be initiated with the crown of the helmet to be targeting, which it was not on that play.


On tat play, the initial contact was with the area of the helmet where the facemask meets the helmet. That is not the crown of the helmet. That's why it wasn't targeting and why it wasn't called that way on the field. I think your issue is you see helmet to helmet contact and immediately think it is targeting. That's just not how the rule works.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 4:44 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