First, let's clear up a couple of things. Regardless of what you may have heard, there is no such thing in UIL football as "flagrant targeting." There is "targeting" - which 100% follows the NCAA targeting rule - requiring disqualification as well as the distance penalty (and first down if by B), and there is "non-flagrant targeting," which has the distance penalty (and first down if by B), but no disqualification. Targeting, by its very nature, is flagrant, and requires disqualification.
However, before the UIL adopted this unique (non-NCAA) application of the targeting rule, the UIL and the THSCA had the perception that many probable targeting fouls were not being called, because officials feared disqualifying a player (which could mean for the first half of the next game) in situations when they weren't 100% certain that all of the elements for targeting were present. In those cases, no fouls at all were being called, which had no deterrence effect at all. The THSCA and the UIL developed the concept of a "non-flagrant" targeting foul, to encourage more fouls to get called, to help stem the tide of dangerous "big hits" to the head of the victim, or with the head of the attacker.
In the case of 9-1-3 targeting (spearing), there must be forcible contact with the crown of the helmet to the opponent's body, with an indicator. That's three elements.
In the case of 9-1-4 targeting, there must be forcible contact, to the head or neck area of the opponent, with an indicator. That's three elements, also.
In both cases, if all three elements are present, that is a "targeting" foul, and will require DQ.
If a covering official sees a big 9-1-3 "spearing" action by a player to an opponent, THAT is virtually guaranteed to be a targeting foul, because all of the elements are inherent to the foul. We can see that the contact is with the crown of the helmet, and that it is forcible. The only questionable element would be the "indicator," and, if you think about it, how can you have 'spearing' without the attacker lowering his head (which is an indicator)? 9-1-3 fouls are hard to NOT rule as targeting, with a DQ. But, as is the process, the calling official should consult with other officials to see if they can confirm all of the elements are there. If so, then "targeting." But, if, after discussion, there is some level of uncertainty about one of the elements, then the call can be "non-flagrant targeting," and there will be no DQ.
If a covering official see a big 9-1-4 action, all of the elements are in question. Was there contact to the neck/head area of the victim? Was the contact forcible? Was there an indicator? A covering official might see a big 9-1-4 hit, and just react and throw his flag, but then think to himself, "The contact was to the head, and was forcible, but, you know, I really didn't see the attacker coming. I believe he led with his head, but I'm not 100% positive." So, he calls in other crew members, to find out if any of them positively saw the indicator. If so, then "targeting," and a DQ. If not, then the calling official(s) have the option to rule a "non-flagrant targeting," with no DQ.
Whatever was said in the video was probably intended to mean that the 'probability' of a foul having all of the elements for targeting was so much higher with two (or) more calling officials, that when two or more officials make a targeting call, it will almost certainly be a true 'targeting' (with DQ). But, for any targeting call, TASO officials are expected to confer and consult with others on the crew, to confirm all elements were present. If any calling official, whether the sole official on the call, or one of two or more, has positive knowledge that all of the elements are there, then his call will prevail. But, if the likelihood is that all elements were there, but there is some uncertainly about one of them, then the call is "Non-Flagrant Targeting," with no DQ.
Also, there is no such thing as "Unintentional Targeting." For UIL, we have either "Targeting," or "Non-Flagrant Targeting." Nothing else.
Announcements:
Targeting, number 99, defense. That's a 15-yard penalty, and an automatic first down. Number 99 is disqualified from from further participation in this game."
Targeting, number 99, defense. That's a 15-yard penalty, and an automatic first down. This is a non-flagrant foul, and number 99 may continue to participate in this game."
