re: Was the targeting call against RSJ (TAMU) the correct call?

Terrible call. That wasn't even penalty-worthy, let alone targeting. He blocked an active player moving toward the ball-carrier from an angle that the player could have easily avoided had he been paying attention.

I think what we all learned today is that states defenders are defenseless.

quote:

---

IMO it was a bad call, but I do not know the intricacies of the rule.


Its not that intricate

---

Then you should probably read it before forming an opinion.

It's posted in this thread.

Pretty sure helmet to helmet contact is the foundation of the rule and though brief there is obvious helmet to helmet contact.

So not that intricate

quote:

---

What happened to the language about leading with the "crown" of the helmet? They used to use those words ALL the time

---

Yea. Before the targeting rule went into effect in 2013.

Targeting only requires helmet to helmet contact

quote:

---

Question, is helmet to helmet contact illegal? I hear those words used during calls. Is helmet to helmet contact that same rule as targeting?

---

Yea. Where have you been the past two years?

Awful call and even worse rule to begin with. Ejection should only be if an illegal hit is blatant.

Nice crack back - shitty call

I thought it was very borderline where he hit the guy. But that he was blindsided is BS. This was not the same as warren sapp destroying Clifton. This was a defender not at aware of what is going on around him when he's in the middle of trying to make a tackle. He wasn't out of the play.

That was a shite call.

Serious question here.

Hypothetical. That defender is doing EXACTLY what he was actually doing in the game ... totally focusing on the WR and paying ZERO attention to anything else on the field. Let's say for the sake of argument that this inattentiveness renders him "defenseless" (A BS assumption, but let's make it arguendo).

Remember that this was a "crack-back" block, but that RSJ did NOT "blindside" this guy. They were running at one another "face-to-face." The contact was to the back of the defender's shoulder ONLY because of a change in their relative angles immediately before contact.

Pretend that RSJ is a few inches shorter and is able to plant his facemask in the middle of the defender's chest. Textbook "form tackle" or perfect block. The sort of thing that once got you a sticker for the back of your helmet.

The hit is so hard that the defender is driven backward and his head snaps forward. The facemask of his helmet hits the back of RSJ's helmet (the front of which is buried in his chest.

Penalty?

The defender is "defenseless." The hit involves head-to-head contact (albeit unintentional & collateral to the chest-plant). RSJ hits him hard enough to drive him backwards and snap his head forward, so it certainly seems "forcible."

I cannot see a penalty in this hypo. And the only difference is that RSU hit the shoulder first ... rather than the chest ... before the head snapped into inadvertent contact.