ADVERTISEMENT

Targeting Question

Jun 8, 2022
1,137
3,162
113
Just watching the Illinois Minnesota game. Tanner Morgan takes off scrambling for the first down and the Illini defender comes in and tries to punch the ball out and ends up punching Morgan straight in the head - no where near the ball. Morgan has to leave the game. No penalty.

How can that not be a penalty at least like a face mask or even targeting? I don’t care if the defender tried to do it or not, just like a face mask, whether intentional or not, it’s a penalty. Same with targeting - whether they intend it or not, the defender is responsible if there is contact to the head. If you’re gonna punch for the ball, you should be accountable for a head shot imo!
 
Looks like targeting to me. I would have called it.

But, it is hard to tell how much force was in the "punch". Maybe that's why. 🤷‍♀️


Very similar situation in the ISU game, and it probably cost them the game.
 
ISU qb was hit in the shoulder not head but Dekkers tried to sell it as such, especially with the fumble.
Correct, that was not targeting. He was definitely hit on the shoulder and before he was down. It was the correct call no matter how loudly ISU fans want to cry about it. Not shocking tho, as that is what they do after every loss since the dawn of time.

Instead of talking about the terrible INT in the endzone, or the embarrassing drop for a walk in touchdown by Hutchison, it was the refs fault.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Beattheohiostate
Dekkers was a runner at the time of the hit correct? He was not a defenseless player. I only saw the play briefly and didn’t get a good look, but he certainly didn’t appear to give himself up prior to being hit.
 
The INT in the end zone by Dekkers WAS the difference in the game. Get up 14-0, its a totally different game. The drop by Xavier was unfortunate - feel bad for him because he played so well, and they don't have a chance without him. People will remember the fumble/targeting play at the end of the game because it was at the end of the game. ISU their chances, but didn't make enough plays. Good game. Too bad.

My only issue is "what is targeting" and when they do/do not decide to call it. There was a "roughing the QB" call on ISU that seemed borderline to me (albeit I'm biased) that extended a UT drive that lead to a score. So many calls in the game of FB that are subjective. NOT blaming officials at all. It's just a frustrating game to watch sometimes.

When the game was over, I went out + mowed my lawn. Life goes on. It's just a game played by kids. Doesn't affect my life that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EpenesaEpenesa
The INT in the end zone by Dekkers WAS the difference in the game. Get up 14-0, its a totally different game. The drop by Xavier was unfortunate - feel bad for him because he played so well, and they don't have a chance without him. People will remember the fumble/targeting play at the end of the game because it was at the end of the game. ISU their chances, but didn't make enough plays. Good game. Too bad.

My only issue is "what is targeting" and when they do/do not decide to call it. There was a "roughing the QB" call on ISU that seemed borderline to me (albeit I'm biased) that extended a UT drive that lead to a score. So many calls in the game of FB that are subjective. NOT blaming officials at all. It's just a frustrating game to watch sometimes.

When the game was over, I went out + mowed my lawn. Life goes on. It's just a game played by kids. Doesn't affect my life that much.

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. ...

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indications of targeting(emphasis NCAA's) include but are not limited to:

  • 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

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

  • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass
  • A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
  • A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return
  • A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
  • A player on the ground
  • A player obviously out of the play
  • A player who receives a blind-side block
  • A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped
  • A quarterback any time after a change of possession a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first"

If you’re watching the Bama Tenn game, this is textbook targeting by Tennessee
😂 so of course they don’t confirm it.
 
That targeting by the Michigan State player might be one of the worst plays I’ve seen someone make😂
 
ADVERTISEMENT