I agree, not targeting.

Thurman Merman said:

---

I wasn't targeting. I don't think most of you know what targeting is.

---

Was targeting. I don't think most of you know what targeting is.

See how easy this is?

The rule supposedly was made to protect players. Two players were injured on the play because of the hit. Forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player, perfect definition of targeting.

For everyone saying NOT targeting, if it wasn't forcible contact with the helmet, how was he knocked unconscious?

And, he was out before he hit the ground.

No review at all, that's insane in a playoff game.

allenb said:

---

RARay said:

---

Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.

---

Ball on the 1 and 1st down

---

1/2 the distance so 2 and 1/2 yd line but still

gilhicks1 said:

---

For everyone saying NOT targeting, if it wasn't forcible contact with the helmet, how was he knocked unconscious?

And, he was out before he hit the ground.

No review at all, that's insane in a playoff game.

---

Good luck getting the t-ship sips and techsters camped out on this thread to provide a logical answer.

Thurman Merman said:

---

I wasn't targeting. I don't think most of you know what targeting is.

---

Look at the play again. Read the rule. Comprehend the rule. Try again.

Logos Stick said:

---

Thurman Merman said:

---

I wasn't targeting. I don't think most of you know what targeting is.

---

Look at the play again. Read the rule. Comprehend the rule. Try again.

---

I did. It isn't targeting. No launch, no crown, no thrust upwards.

aggiedad7 said:

---

allenb said:

---

RARay said:

---

Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.

---

Ball on the 1 and 1st down

---

1/2 the distance so 2 and 1/2 yd line but still

---

Not just half the distance but it resets to 1st down. The fact they didn't even look at it was criminal.

Hey Fehctard - nobody cares what your dumbass thinks.

Go **** yourself, you stupid mother****er.

Thurman Merman said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Thurman Merman said:

---

I wasn't targeting. I don't think most of you know what targeting is.

---

Look at the play again. Read the rule. Comprehend the rule. Try again.

---

I did. It isn't targeting. No launch, no crown, no thrust upwards.

---

How common is it to get knocked unconscious initiating helmet to helmet without a "thrust upwards"? Also, the Miami defender's helmet is at least a foot below Ruben Owens's helmet. Ruben's head remains level until the contact. He didn't lower his head, and accordingly to you the Miami player didn't "thrust upwards", yet somehow the helmets collided with such impact as to render him unconscious. Happens all the time, right?

It is a defenseless player the rules are no forcible contact to head and neck area, which this was.

Remember we were the first offensive targeting call, also deemed a defenseless player with a similar hit.

Jahdae lit that boy up 😭😭 pic.twitter.com/56eMJZ3PiT

— Dillon (@dillon_rabon) October 28, 2024

What counts as targeting

A player is guilty of targeting if they take aim and make forcible contact:
1. With the crown (top) of the helmet against any opponent
or
2. To the head or neck area of a defenseless player (such as a receiver in the air, a quarterback after a throw, or a player being tackled and unable to protect themselves)

Key indicators officials look for

Refs (and replay officials) consider things like:
Launching upward into the opponent
Leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, or fist
Lowering the head before contact
Making contact above the shoulders

No single indicator is requiredofficials judge the totality of the hit.

Penalty and consequences
15-yard penalty
Automatic first down (if by the defense)
Ejection of the player guilty of targeting
If it happens in the second half, the player is also suspended for the first half of the next game

Replay review
All targeting calls are reviewable
Replay can confirm, overturn, or change the call
If overturned, there is no ejection and no targeting foul






Now why wouldn't you call it and review it? Because you can take it back.

And that's 100% targeting. The fact anyone is debating this is ridiculous.

Tramp96 said:

---

He didn't leave his feet.

Whoever said it's crown to crown is on crack. It's not.

It's not targeting. Period. Don't know what else to tell you, but THAT is NOT targeting.

---

Liar. And it's not necessary for him to launch or leave his feet for it to be targeting. He forcibly contacted the head of a defenseless player.

Can someone please explain how this isn’t helmet to helmet/targeting in the A&M v Miami game? No flag? How? pic.twitter.com/yztCWi0MsG

— TheTruth (@TheTruth9313) December 20, 2025

Don't forget, we once had a targeting waved off after review, but still lost 15 yards and a 4th down for it.

I believe it was targeting because the two players were potentially injured in the head. That's the whole purpose of the rule.

Anyone who denies that targeting would have absolutley been called if the receiver (instead of defender) got knocked out, is insane.

If it was an AI robot making the call based on the rule, a flag would have been thrown at the unconscious defender. But refs are human, and if reaching for the flag, they dont throw it at a player who looks seriously injured. It is what it is.

It is wrong to not throw that flag.

Sad that so many want to believe the Big 12 refs was going to call a fair game.

Big 12 refs didn't want us to win.

Ughh

RARay said:

---

allenb said:

---

RARay said:

---

Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.

---

Ball on the 1 and 1st down

---

And? We weren't going to run the ball with no timeouts. The interception was thrown on third down. Nothing changes with a couple more yards.

---

It absolutely changes things.

That would have given us the opportunity to give into the endzone and fumble the back down and out of the endzone for a touchback.....

If only your SEC athletes would have come through against the lowly ACC athletes, maybe wouldn't have been in the position to cry about a call.

CleanPerception26 said:

---

If only your SEC athletes would have come through against the lowly ACC athletes, maybe wouldn't have been in the position to cry about a call.

---

Go away troll. Enjoy your exit in the next round.

CleanPerception26 said:

---

If only your SEC athletes would have come through against the lowly ACC athletes, maybe wouldn't have been in the position to cry about a call.

---

thUgs

CleanPerception26 said:

---

If only your SEC athletes would have come through against the lowly ACC athletes, maybe wouldn't have been in the position to cry about a call.

---

How is the young man? Hope he's ok and can play in the next round. Good luck.

HarryRocket said:

---

What counts as targeting

A player is guilty of targeting if they take aim and make forcible contact:
1. With the crown (top) of the helmet against any opponent
or
2. To the head or neck area of a defenseless player (such as a receiver in the air, a quarterback after a throw, or a player being tackled and unable to protect themselves)

Key indicators officials look for

Refs (and replay officials) consider things like:
Launching upward into the opponent
Leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, or fist
Lowering the head before contact
Making contact above the shoulders

No single indicator is requiredofficials judge the totality of the hit.

Penalty and consequences
15-yard penalty
Automatic first down (if by the defense)
Ejection of the player guilty of targeting
If it happens in the second half, the player is also suspended for the first half of the next game

Replay review
All targeting calls are reviewable
Replay can confirm, overturn, or change the call
If overturned, there is no ejection and no targeting foul






Now why wouldn't you call it and review it? Because you can take it back.

And that's 100% targeting. The fact anyone is debating this is ridiculous.

---

I guess my post was removed, why I don't know. I posted the key sections.

Per that text, it was targeting.

Defenseless player, check
Head or neck area, check
Leading with helmet, check
Lowering the head, check.

100% Targeting!

The idiots talking about crown and launching, etc, don't understand the English language and conjunctions. For example, there is no AND in the indicator list.

Thurman Merman said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Thurman Merman said:

---

I wasn't targeting. I don't think most of you know what targeting is.

---

Look at the play again. Read the rule. Comprehend the rule. Try again.

---

I did. It isn't targeting. No launch, no crown, no thrust upwards.

---

You're either a liar in that you didn't read the rule, or you're an idiot who didn't understand what you read. Which is it?

You don't have to launch, use the crown, or thrust upwards for it to be targeting. Just forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player, which the receiver was by definition.

The tell tale sign was that the Miami player was concussed. It's unbelievable that wasn't called. It should have been 15 yards and a first down.