Targeting and lost helmet

[dvasques]

Rom Gilbert's First week game review's first play is a MS Valley x Florida A&M and the whole discussion is around targeting or not.

I don't think it was targeting and the IR did a good job on reverting and getting B8 back to the game

But the one thing that I think passed by without notice is that the QB loses his helmet during play and I don't think it was due to a foul. There was contact to the helmet that was called as a foul, but he only lost his helmet once he hit the ground.

Shouldn't he be held out for a play here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxNQa93oijs

[mishatx]

I think it would be a tough sell to say "we called a foul for hitting the guy in the head, but it wasn't the foul that knocked the helmet off".

[dvasques]

but it clearly wasn't

[blindref757]

The hit lifted and popped the helmet off of the chin...which is why it came off when he hit the ground.

[TXMike]

DV - Let's just say we are adding that "penalty" to the penalty the hitter and his team get for his serious foul.  That "penalty" (the player is allowed to remain in the game) is just one more consequence of the illegal act.  It may be too hard to sell that on many other types of fouls, i.e. roughing the passer, but on targeting it should easily pass muster.

[dvasques]

so we have late hit the helmet or a ball carrier, he falls down with his helmet on but when he hits the ground it comes off. He can't stay in the game because him being hit on the helmet is not a foul

or we have a late hit on the chest of the ball carrier right after he stepped OB and the hit goes up and touches the facemask while the ball carrier is going down with his helmet. Once he hits the ground, it comes off.
He can be in the game, even though it was a penalty but it was not responsible for the helmet comming off. Even though it was, since the hitter touched the facemask and made it lose enough so it would come off when he hit the ground