Targeting Call

[OttosShoes]

The call was not targeting as it wasn't helmet initial contact but a shoulder.

Targeting is leading with the crown or any unnecessary hit to the head on a defenseless player.

The hit didn't lead with the head that's clear. But their review must have concluded that this player wasn't defenseless.

Here's the definition of defenseless.

SECTION 27. Team and Player Designations​

Defenseless Player ​

ARTICLE 14. ​

A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:​

...​

h. A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.​

...​

I get that 'h' is debatable, but this, especially in bold:

"A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. "

is wild. It's one thing if they never threw a flag, but the call on the field was targeting, so they're saying that video is clear and irrefutable evidence that proves there's no question he isn't defenseless.

Was the ACC review booth on TV? Did they have clarity. I called the fumble pretty quick in my section as I think jis knee was on a foot.

At least in the replay it was notably absent.

 

[VTAaron]

Targeting is leading with the crown or any unnecessary hit to the head on a defenseless player.

The hit didn't lead with the head that's clear. But their review must have concluded that this player wasn't defenseless.
View attachment 255569

Here's the definition of defenseless.


I get that 'h' is debatable, but this, especially in bold:

"A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. "

is wild. It's one thing if they never threw a flag, but the call on the field was targeting, so they're saying that video is clear and irrefutable evidence that proves there's no question he isn't defenseless.



At least in the replay it was notably absent.

I agree he was defenseless he was going down backwards with 2 others in front one on behind when it hit, not this picture, and the targeting person on the side. The hit was a bit later in the video which is sad, but that picture paints the picture in that he definitely cant defend himself. It was the longest review I've ever experienced actually, just disappointed on how it turned out as it killed the SU Offense, Defense, and spirit of the game early on. Maybe it could have been different overall.

 

[powdersmack]

Targeting is leading with the crown or any unnecessary hit to the head on a defenseless player.

The hit didn't lead with the head that's clear. But their review must have concluded that this player wasn't defenseless.
View attachment 255569

Here's the definition of defenseless.


I get that 'h' is debatable, but this, especially in bold:

"A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. "

is wild. It's one thing if they never threw a flag, but the call on the field was targeting, so they're saying that video is clear and irrefutable evidence that proves there's no question he isn't defenseless.



At least in the replay it was notably absent.

That is also not a fumble.

 

[OttosShoes]

Here's the relevant verbiage for the hit on a defenseless player:

• 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

Sure seems like the 2nd and 3rd apply.

 

[VTAaron]

Here's the relevant verbiage for the hit on a defenseless player:



Sure seems like the 2nd and 3rd apply.

In the video and replays during the game I don't think he directly hit the head/neck, which is why I think the refs discounted the 2nd/3rd unless I missed that angle. The helmet contact was after not a direct item too. I think they need to update definitions.

 

[OttosShoes]

In the video and replays during the game I don't think he directly hit the head/neck, which is why I think the refs discounted the 2nd/3rd unless I missed that angle. The helmet contact was after not a direct item too. I think they need to update definitions.

Here's the URL. Stills are tough, but when you watch in slow motion you can time the impact better.


Anyway, wouldn't surprise me if Wildhack follows up with the ACC on this and I think he should, but I also think I'm beating a dead horse at this point. Whatever the rules are I just don't like this being part of the game.

 

[VTAaron]

View attachment 255571
View attachment 255570

Here's the URL. Stills are tough, but when you watch in slow motion you can time the impact better.


Anyway, wouldn't surprise me if Wildhack follows up with the ACC on this and I think he should, but I also think I'm beating a dead horse at this point. Whatever the rules are I just don't like this being part of the game.

Yeah good pics... Yeah a 'hip' vs a shoulder... Wording needs to change on targetting as he was already going down and vulnerable. At least at min it should be a personal foul like throwing your weight on top on a tackle.

It's probably why it took so long to review as it didnt meet the definition. Either way we go screwed and it I think this is where it messed up the rest of the game as it wasn't one hit but then the rest of the hits after too going backwards. Damn lucky his neck is not broke as it was the opposite direction with the other 2 on top of him after going backwards.

 

[VTAaron]

Yeah good pics... Yeah a 'hip' vs a shoulder... Wording needs to change on targetting as he was already going down and vulnerable. At least at min it should be a personal foul like throwing your weight on top on a tackle.

It's probably why it took so long to review as it didnt meet the definition. Either way we go screwed and it I think this is where it messed up the rest of the game as it wasn't one hit but then the rest of the hits after too going backwards. Damn lucky his neck is not broke as it was the opposite direction with the other 2 on top of him after going backwards.

Still should at least been some personal foul and the fumble reversed as a result.

 

[Cuse On 3]

This rule needs to be changed. Especially in light of CTE, and especially when they announced this week that the Park Avenue shooter who was trying to get to the NFL offices did indeed have CTE after studying his brain. This person only played through HS, so what does this tell you about all of those hits to the head? To me any helmet to helmet on any portion of the head/helmet should be targeting. Unless the player is blocked into the other player.

Rudi Johnson recently committed suicide. Great running back for auburn and the bengals. Was only 45. Most likely CTE according to family