Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an
opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top
segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius
from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one
indicator of targeting

Coaches write em.

I think they should have a 6-inch ring painted around the apex of the helmet so there's some guidance when evaluating a hit. I think targeting is a dumb rule, but if it is going to be enforced, then let's give the officials something to reference.

deer corn said:

---

Would have been for us.

---

Very glad to give the star that turned your post blue

bigjag19 said:

---

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an
opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top
segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius
from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one
indicator of targeting unless committed by Texas A&M in which case any hit resembling a football play will be construed as targeting

---

FIFY

zephyr88 said:

---

bulverdeaggie93 said:

---

he blew his head off… it's 1000x targeting on 99% of college teams

---

---

No, it's not. If the victim is defenseless then helmet to helmet is part of consideration. The ball carrier was not defenseless in this play.

Bill Superman said:

---

It was helmet to helmet. That's a foul.

It was a million times worse than what they called against us in 2011 to give sip the game.

---

Only on a defenseless player

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

It was helmet to helmet. That's a foul.

It was a million times worse than what they called against us in 2011 to give sip the game.

---

Only on a defenseless player

---

Except that it has been called many, many times on players that have been able to defend themselves.

---

No denying any of that. Just saying by the rule it wasn't a penalty.

How about this to clarify targeting? - if the defender can't see what he's tackling, it's targeting.

That wasn't far from the way it was originally written. The halo really narrowed it down.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

It was helmet to helmet. That's a foul.

It was a million times worse than what they called against us in 2011 to give sip the game.

---

Only on a defenseless player

---

Except that it has been called many, many times on players that have been able to defend themselves.

---

Including in 2011

Bison said:

---

Sark's team has found a new way to commit targeting. This looks suspiciously like what happened in our game: the defender turned his head to avoid contacting with the crown, but clearly lowered his head with the intent to commit helmet--helmet contact. The rule needs to be changed; either Get rid of it or change it so that any contact where the head gets lowered by the defender is called.

---

There used to be a rule called spearing that covered this. But then the NCAA decided to roll spearing and targeting together, having two penalties under the same rule with the same name. After people kept complaining about how the spearing portion was getting called as targeting on plays where there wasn't actual targeting, we've ended up in this situation after rule changes where spearing is allowed again.

Add spearing back to the rule book. The whole reason it existed was because those tackles are more dangerous (and I'd bet they're more dangerous than targeting hits).

For the record, I don't think this was either targeting or spearing. QB lowered his head into the shoulder check, not like the one that should have been called last week. Unless you want to make hitting someone in the process of being tackled targeting, it won't ever get called.

Tergdor said:

---

Bison said:

---

Sark's team has found a new way to commit targeting. This looks suspiciously like what happened in our game: the defender turned his head to avoid contacting with the crown, but clearly lowered his head with the intent to commit helmet--helmet contact. The rule needs to be changed; either Get rid of it or change it so that any contact where the head gets lowered by the defender is called.

---

There used to be a rule called spearing that covered this. But then the NCAA decided to roll spearing and targeting together, having two penalties under the same rule with the same name. After people kept complaining about how the spearing portion was getting called as targeting on plays where there wasn't actual targeting, we've ended up in this situation after rule changes where spearing is allowed again.

Add spearing back to the rule book. The whole reason it existed was because those tackles are more dangerous (and I'd bet they're more dangerous than targeting hits).

---

Spearing is still a rule. Leading with the crown of a helmet (spearing) is now targeting.

vander54 said:

---

Tergdor said:

---

Bison said:

---

Sark's team has found a new way to commit targeting. This looks suspiciously like what happened in our game: the defender turned his head to avoid contacting with the crown, but clearly lowered his head with the intent to commit helmet--helmet contact. The rule needs to be changed; either Get rid of it or change it so that any contact where the head gets lowered by the defender is called.

---

There used to be a rule called spearing that covered this. But then the NCAA decided to roll spearing and targeting together, having two penalties under the same rule with the same name. After people kept complaining about how the spearing portion was getting called as targeting on plays where there wasn't actual targeting, we've ended up in this situation after rule changes where spearing is allowed again.

Add spearing back to the rule book. The whole reason it existed was because those tackles are more dangerous (and I'd bet they're more dangerous than targeting hits).

---

Spearing is still a rule. Leading with the crown of a helmet (spearing) is now targeting.

---

And like I said, it's never called. It used to be called on offensive players, too.

Its still called but i agree offensive players never get called which is weird.

Unless you're RSJ.

Thompson said:

---

I can recall at least two instances within the last season or two where less egregious 'side hits' by A&M defenders were called targeting and 'confirmed' after review. Anyone remember which plays / have videos? Apparently the rule is A&M = targeting, texas = not targeting.

---

It depends on whether the ball carrier is deemed a runner vs a QB or receiver making a catch. As the QB took off on a designed run he's no longer a QB and deemed a runner. It's not that complicated, but somehow on TexAgs it is. As a runner you have to hit him with the crown of the helmet to be targeting which he didn't. He hit him with the side. Now.... the call would have stood against us, I'm just saying the replay guy made the right call per the rules.

I jumped off the couch and screamed when I saw the hit.
I was smiling from ear to ear while the quarterback was writhing in pain.

The shot of the QB knocked out, but still hanging onto the ball was epic.
In the SEC it just means more.

Atlanta will be going crazy tonight celebrating Georgia's SEC Championship. You can bet traffic will be backed up.