Started By
Message
re: Missed Targeting
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:17 pm to MFn GIMP
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:17 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
by MFn GIMP
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below).
Note 2 = A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
Note 1 = Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Both notes 1 and 2 are met which means it was targeting of a defenseless player
1
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:20 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:yeah I was looking at that, too.
Yeah, I guess that’s why they didn’t call it but it sure as shite looked forcible to me. He led with his head and knocked himself the frick out. Not much incidental about that.
I know he's trying make a play, but that was helmet to helmet and he knocked himself out.
Don't know if 1st down from about the 2, you see a Reed run instead
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:22 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
People complain about the targeting rule then complain when targeting isn't called.
Incidental head/head isnt necessarily targeting.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:22 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Note 1 = Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
LINK
"It seems that some officials have been interpreting the crown of the helmet to mean the tip-top portion of the helmet only," NCAA Football Secretary-Rules Editor Rogers Redding said in a release. "We want everyone to understand that the crown of the helmet starts from the area above the facemask to the dome of the helmet."".""
Show me the replay where even the top of the Miami players facemask hit first.
This post was edited on 12/20/25 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:25 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
People complain about the targeting rule then complain when targeting isn't called. Be consistent. The targeting rule shouldn't exist.
Even if it was targeting... I feel obligated to mention that Miami got called for the other penalty "roughing the passer"... that is ruining CFB that helped A&M get down the field on that drive.
As far as the play in the end zone... what is frustrating is the guy went in completely straight up. Didn't lead with his head or anything. What the hell else is he supposed to do on a play like that?
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:25 pm to mmmmmbeeer
Shut up. It was a real football tackle.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:26 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
That was a defensive play in which the Miami player put his body on the line to force an incompletion and was not egregious or trying to hurt somebody.
intent doesn't matter in football
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:27 pm to mmmmmbeeer
Missed calls happen. I thought it was a good hit but targeting is a call that isn't consistent and if its not going to be consistent then it should be abolished.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:27 pm to Gunga Din
quote:
As far as the play in the end zone... what is frustrating is the guy went in completely straight up. Didn't lead with his head or anything. What the hell else is he supposed to do on a play like that?
According to mmmmmbeer and others who hate football you have to let the receiver catch it and score. Nevermind the defender makes a textbook hit and that if the defender had lowered his head and hit the receiver in the chest it would have been called targeting even with it being the safer hit. He needs to let the WR catch it.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:30 pm to Masterag
quote:
intent doesn't matter in football
It absolutely does according to the rule. LINK
Let's say the WR was defenseless, what example in Note 1 did the Miami player do?
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
..."This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet"
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:30 pm to ScotlandAve
Targeting is targeting no matter when it occurs
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:31 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
This game was seemingly impacted by what I perceived to be a pretty fricking obvious targeting
With no timeouts, they weren't going to run the ball. He threw an end zone pick. Not the biggest impact with like 12 seconds to go IMHO.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:40 pm to Barbellthor
That so called targeting was a player trying to make a play, the acting job by Reed was a player trying to do by acting what he couldn't do by playing
They even out
They even out
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:46 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
People complain about the targeting rule then complain when targeting isn't called. Be consistent
I know you responded to someone else, but my issue is the inconsistency lies with the referees not the fans.
quote:
The targeting rule shouldn't exist.
I agree with that part.
I’m thinking back a few days when I saw a USF player get disqualified from their bowl game for tackling the runner 10 yards downfield and the ball carrier lowered his head at full speed into the defenders helmet to try for extra yards. Comparing that play to the one today, they were both called incorrectly/inconsistently. Like the OP, I don’t have a dog in any of these fights.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News