Started By
Message
re: Is this not the definition of targeting?
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:38 pm to Deacon Reds
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:38 pm to Deacon Reds
The crown of the helmet hitting the body or underside of helmet...yes.
In that pic...judgement call.
In that pic...judgement call.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:42 pm to southernboisb
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
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News