re: Is this not the definition of targeting?

quote:

---

Looks like Targeting can be to a defenseless player, but doesn’t have to be.

---

True, BUT the caveat is that once a player is determined to not be defenseless the scope for when you can throw the flag narrows considerably.

So if this player isn't defenseless, then lowering his helmet pretty much rules out targeting.

Probably. The TV copy showed the sideline over and over (trying to see if stet stepped out of bounds which was an awful call on the field).

When the announcers and booth ref were discussing targeting, they showed the tight angle and the booth ref properly predicted from that angle that no penalty would be given.

So yes. The OP should have known better (sideline angle is misleading because it doesn't show where contact was mostly made)

I was thinking the same thing.

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.

Welcome to the thread. It’s been discussed to death. Please feel free to peruse the many responses at no additional charge.

No.

Now please, by all means, cry more.

quote:

---

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.

---

He could be wrong.

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

It doesn't matter with the 3 indicators.

He did use 6 inches below the apex.

"Jesus" is right.

Y’all are starting to sound like my wife in here.

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".