Sorry Al. That's not entirely true. An example of a defenseless player is a receiver who has just caught a pass or just missed a pass. If get's blown-up, it's only a foul if the contact is helmet-to-helmet per the rules.
Hold on Magician, I never suggested the question you've decided to answer. To be honest, I'm not sure how anyone would determine, "a player who has caught a pass, is defenseless". if the ball is still alive. If it's a dead ball that could be a different story. To suggest either "Targeting" or an illegal Head to Head contact, I would have to actually observe the full contact to determine if either was the case, and deserving a foul. Whatever that decision might be, it would relate to ONLY that specific circumstance.
Trying to create a cookie-cutter description of either, to determine a violation, or not, is a dangerous exercise likely to cause far more mistakes than solutions. What call was made at ANY previous time relates ONLY to that time, that play and the specific observation of the calling official because NO TWO FOOTBALL PLAYS ARE EVER IDENTICAL.
We've all been trained that we need to observe the ENTIRE action to be able to decide if there is a violation, or not. The fact that heads collide means ONLY that there has been an unfortunate collision, whether either player is guilty of violating a rule requires a more comprehensive observation of what actually happened prior to, and during the actual collision, by both parties to determine who, if anyone, is guilty of violating a rule.
We have a far higher standard than what is required by ANY spectator, including coaches, players, announcers, in forming their conclusion, of course the difference actually is that the covering officials judgment (made in real time) is the only judgment that matters.
It would seem these definition clarifications are intended to further expose and help identify inappropriate behaviors that have long existed, rather than create new ones.
