Engaged with an opposing player, unable to properly brace for impact… defenseless.

Dude took a cheap shot. Same dude that took one against us. Seems to be his MO.

bigjag19 said:

---

Show me the rule. Show me why it was targeting. Real time it looked like it so flag was thrown. Replay says nope, doesn't meet definition so must pick up. That is the exact way the rule is written.

---

He doesn't care about the rule just his opinion. He's right the rules are wrong

TexasRebel said:

---

Engaged with an opposing player, unable to properly brace for impact… defenseless.

Dude took a cheap shot. Same dude that took one against us. Seems to be his MO.

---

If that's the definition of defenseless, then there's targeting every time more than one player makes a tackle.

The rulebook clearly defines defenseless. The player must either be in the process of a pass, kick, or catch, give themselves up, or must have their forward progress stopped. None of those applied.

That is not the same as what happened last week where the WR was still in the process of the catch when he got hit. This is a clean play.

The rulebook gives a non-exhaustive list of defenseless player examples.

"Examples of a defenseless player include, but are not limited to…"

Words mean things.

TexasRebel said:

---

The rulebook gives a non-exhaustive list of defenseless player examples.

"Examples of a defenseless player include, but are not limited to…"

Words mean things.

---

Especially when they describe a ball carrier as defenseless when he's engaged with a tackler and his forward momentum has been stopped. Not jist engaged with a tackler.

But of course you'll say his forward momentum was stopped and Arch did not have the ball past the pylon.

TexasRebel said:

---

The rulebook gives a non-exhaustive list of defenseless player examples.

"Examples of a defenseless player include, but are not limited to…"

Words mean things.

---

What's in it for you?

It was the same defender as in our game!

I don't think that was targeting by the letter of the law but I don't understand why there is no middle ground. It was unnecessary and dangerous. Flag it as such. Just bc there was no targeting shouldn't mean there is just now foul at all. I think if there was a middle ground, it would also help remove some of the borderline targeting calls where players are getting ejected for bang bang plays.

High school actually added middle ground, but I'm not sure anyone really calls it. Basically if not absolutely certain it's a personal foul but no ejection.

Which is backward according to the NCAA rule.

"When in question, a player is defenseless."

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

---

Targeting is a stupid rule

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

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

---

Targeting is a stupid rule

---

No it's not. It protects players.

The defender lowered his head and speared the receiver. The defender was looking straight at the ground - he couldn't see the receiver. He was purposefully attempting to injure the receiver using his helmet.

That is targeting.

Farmer_J said:

---

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

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

---

Targeting is a stupid rule

---

No it's not. It protects players.

The defender lowered his head and speared the receiver. The defender was looking straight at the ground - he couldn't see the receiver. He was purposefully attempting to injure the receiver using his helmet.

That is targeting.

---

The ball carrier (QB) saw the defender and lowered his head. What was the defender supposed to do in that situation?

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

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

---

Targeting is a stupid rule

---

Great idea horrible execution

Seasoned Lifeguard said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

HoustonAggie427 said:

---

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

---

Targeting is a stupid rule

---

No it's not. It protects players.

The defender lowered his head and speared the receiver. The defender was looking straight at the ground - he couldn't see the receiver. He was purposefully attempting to injure the receiver using his helmet.

That is targeting.

---

The ball carrier (QB) saw the defender and lowered his head. What was the defender supposed to do in that situation?

---

There's not much he can do when being held by another player and the defender has his head down, leading with The Crown of the helmet.

dixichkn said:

---

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

---

They've changed the definition of the rule since then.
Still not great, but wayyyyy better than it was.

At some point you've gotta let hard hitting stay in the game, but player safety still matters.
Had it been a UGA player that hit the t.u. QB in the same way, I'm betting the narrative would be way different in here.

Need a penalty similar to charging in the NHL.

"If the player leads with their helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact the head or neck area of an opposing player."

1,000,000,000,000,000% TARGETING

Had it been the Aggies, our guy would have been arrested and in GITMO by now.

DGrimesAg92 said:

---

"If the player leads with their helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact the head or neck area of an opposing player."

1,000,000,000,000,000% TARGETING

Had it been the Aggies, our guy would have been arrested and in GITMO by now.

---

Read the rule again. There are 2 versions of targeting. The one your referencing is only applicable on a defenseless player. A ball carrier is rarely defenseless (only when forward progress has been stopped)