I've seen many plays flagged for targeting that seemed like incidental contact but the non call last night seemed like a text book example of it to me. Does anybody know how the replay booth could watch that in slow motion and say nope? That looked full force, head lowered for to create impact then crown to crown impact. If that wasn't targeting, then how does the less severe incidents get so regularly called? This call seems far from consistent.

#1 Because the player made a football move he wasn't defenseless, despite the fact he was been restricted by another tackler. This is a major oversight of the rule that can and should be fixed.

#2. The region of his helmet that made contact was just outside of what is considered the crown of the helmet per the current rule.

On a reddit game thread evn the PSU fans were asking about why it wasn't targeting.

The rule is still a work in progress and I expect the Ducks football program is going give the B1G offices heck for fixing the rules so players don't get hurt in this situation that clearly meets the intent of what the rule is trying to prevent, yet rules it acceptable.

Unfortunately, it is probably going to take a player down for the count with a major concussion before they reverse these dangerous, hairsplitting rule changes.

If you ask me, it's targeting. There was helmet to helmet contact and the defender did seem to launch himself.

Incidental contact is often something where the offensive player moves in a split second and there is no way for the defender to move.

Also... The targeting rule is all about safety theatre not player safety. I wrote the article below a few years ago but I think it's still relevant to this.

https://fishduck.com/2022/03/the-targeting-rule-is-not-about-player-safety/

One other point. That's also irrelevant.

I don't think the PSU player's action was malicious. He wanted to make a play and Limar was already low to the ground, he may have already been down.

But intent has no say in the rule. There are some actions players take that it looks intentional and malicious and I do believe those should be punished more than incidental contact.

The reality is that to make this rule really about player safety any helmet to helmet contact that takes place should result in all parties involved leaving the game to get checked out by a third party doctor/medical specialist to assess for concussion.

Ejection from the game should only be enacted if the conduct appeared malicious which goes to intent which is always difficult to determine but somehow you just know it when you see it. I know players are no longer required to leave the stadium for targeting but are effectively suspended for 1 half of game play.

I probably can write more on this topic and there is a lot more to get into but the rules are play right now are for show and frustrating.

When they start excusing it by saying, "well, that looked closer to hairline impact, rather than actual 'crown' of the helmet", methinks somebody is looking for a way to excuse...

What scares me the most is not the concussion risk, though it is more common with a blow to the head, but the risk of C-spine injury. Modern helmets are designed to absorb most of that concussive blow, but do not prevent the sudden flexion, extension or compression of the neck that can result in cord trauma. It was unnerving to see Lamar's head snap back from the impact knowing what was happening to the C-spine

You’d think intent would be the primary factor for a rule that has a word describing intent in its name.

Damn....I wince seeing this again.

ouch!! luckily no concussion.

Ask our friend Dilly. Targeting is called as it should have been against Texas late in the Peach Bowl PO game, and it's ASU and not Texas that plays Ohio State (SIGH) in the Cotton Bowl.

"Laws" that are badly written have too much grey area, and this leads to inconsistent enforcement.

Different people in the review booths will interpret the 'law' differently.

David Marsh is spot on. If there is no intent behind the contact, it's still the yardage and a 1st down, but the player should not be kicked out of the game and not lose more playing time in the next game.

2 hours ago, woundedknees said:

When they start excusing it by saying, "well, that looked closer to hairline impact, rather than actual 'crown' of the helmet", methinks somebody is looking for a way to excuse...

Absolutely.... It needs to be broadened to forceful helmet to helmet contact.

And everything else I said above.

In Olympic boxing the hitting surface is a different color. Maybe the "crown" of all helmets should be a different color so it's no longer up to interpretation?

It seems that the reason this was not called is because as the PSU player was lowering his head to target, he made contact before his head was all the way down to make it contact with the "crown" of the helmet.

Some have said it was the "hairline". I think that's probably right but this guy shaves his head, so the hair line is the crown of his helmet.

While the targeting call is somewhat new, they began changing this rule when I was in junior high school.

Our coach announced it was no longer legal to lower our head and lead with the top of our helmet when hitting someone. We were then taught a form tackle, putting the facemask into our opponents chest while wrapping up with our arms. That was 1968. The reason was that some players were getting neck injuries when leading with the crown of the helmet. Aside: I broke my friend's ribs with a form tackle when I was in 7th grade. I'll never forget his screams of pain. I never could really hit someone hard after that.

Later the son of a well known player broke his neck "spearing" an opponent, which pretty much proved the point.

Now the rule is also to protect the ones being hit. This practice is dangerous and it has been for a long time! It has been very hard to get players to stop it, even with the threat of ejection from the game.

Edited 17 hours ago17 hr by OhioDuck

23 minutes ago, OhioDuck said:

Later the son of a well known player broke his neck "spearing" an opponent, which pretty much proved the point.

Now the rule is also to protect the ones being hit. This practice is dangerous and it has been for a long time! It has been very hard to get players to stop it, even with the threat of ejection from the game.

Which is why I think there needs to be a third party that looks players over because we do focus on the player receiving the blow but the player delivering the blow is also in danger.

Part of the evaluation process is “defenseless player”, which they usually rule out one a “football move” is made. Problem with that play was that the runner was absolutely defenseless because someone had their arms wrapped around his body and was riding him to the ground. The runner could do nothing to protect himself in that situation. Glad he wasn’t injured, but wouldn’t be surprised if he has a sore neck for a few days.

The other reason this could have been no called is the unspoken make up call rule. It was near that same spot on they ruled Whittington not down due to contacting blades of grass which resulted in a major swing.

This targeting call would have given us first down at the 1 yardline instead of it being 4th and 1. It was perhaps a bridge too far to give us two major calls to keep our drive alive and cost them one of their starters.

A separate note, is targeting was intended to take the head out of tackling, but PSU defenders didn't get the memo. The consistently were making significant contact with their helmets all through the game. I really would prefer not to play them again for that reason.