Targeting or not targeting, what say you?

[RMR]

From a game this weekend.  I have heard some interesting opinions on this play - thoughts?

[slasc]

I would say 9-1-4, targeting a defenseless player (blind side block) in the neck or head area 

[Kalle]

Agreed, the blocker makes no effort of going low and there is substantial contact to the helmet.

[jrfath]

No targeting. There are some elements...defenseless player (receives a blindside block). Definite launch. But there was not "forcible contact" above the shoulders.

[Etref]

Legal blocks, shoulder in the numbers

[clearwall]

I've seen replay overturn this kind of hit so im saying legal. Shoulder to the chest, helmets hitting is incidental.

[JasonTX]

Is there another angle?  I'm not so sure that the helmets even hit or if anything was in the neck area.  With that said, if he got flagged, then he is the one who raised attention to it with the key indicators.  His head goes down, then the launch.  Not fouls all by themselves but they certainly draw attention to the hit and make him very suspect.

[Welpe]

No targeting. There are some elements...defenseless player (receives a blindside block). Definite launch. But there was not "forcible contact" above the shoulders.

I agree. There is some helmet contact but it does not seem to be forcible. Most of the contact seems to be in the chest.

[Legacy Zebra]

Here is a video with a few more angles. (Warning: it contains commentary from Musburger and Palmer.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GztORwcadfo

[mishatx]

I really think that the player does his best to deliver the blow to the chest - he could have gone higher and appears to avoid that.  The launch is an effort to beat the defender to the spot.  I'd love for him to be able to get a little lower, but I don't know if he can - there's a tight window here with an illegal low block also on the table.

There is head contact, and it may even be initial to the chest contact, but it does not appear to be the forcible contact - it's incidental to the fact that the defender is leaning slightly forward. The blocker is trying to keep his head away from the block.

On the youtube  at :40 - is the LSU coach yelling at the Kentucky bench?

[bkdow]

I'm the new guy, but I'm pretty sure I would have called it.  He lowers his head, it was forcible beyond making a legal tackle or legal block, launched.  Would you consider him defenseless because of the blindside aspect of the block?  Just my two (probably unpopular) cents.

[DallasLJ]

I'm the new guy, but I'm pretty sure I would have called it.  He lowers his head, it was forcible beyond making a legal tackle or legal block, launched.  Would you consider him defenseless because of the blindside aspect of the block?  Just my two (probably unpopular) cents.

  It was "forcible" where?  Has to be forcible contact at the head or neck of the defenseless player.  Forcible contact is in the chest -- any contact by side of helmet, if any, is incidental.  No foul.  Hard, clean hit.

[bkdow]

  It was "forcible" where?  Has to be forcible contact at the head or neck of the defenseless player.  Forcible contact is in the chest -- any contact by side of helmet, if any, is incidental.  No foul.  Hard, clean hit.

When I look at the video clip, the LSU player makes a quick, snapping motion to the right.  Is that enough to be forcible? That's what I am judging my decision on.  If that is incorrect, I can change but that is what I see. 

[DallasLJ]

I'm not saying the LSU player wasn't contacted with "force" and that he did not get walloped.  But the question of forcible contact is was it at the head or neck area, and the answer to that question is No.  The hit and the force of the hit is to the LSU player's chest.  Some hits look bad -- but it isn't about how the hit looks on the hittee --  the foul is based on the type of contact made by the hitter.

[Magician]

I would consider this targeting. The defender left his feet and aimed much higher than necessary. The helmet contact appears more than incidental. Based on how he approached the defender I don't give him much leeway. He goes into Superman mode and does make solid contact.

[Joe Stack]

Has to be forcible contact at the head or neck

Head or neck AREA. Don't leave out important words. Also, when in question, this is a foul. At the very LEAST, this is a when in question hit, which makes it a foul. I didn't think so at first glance, but after watching it a few times, it is a launch (which means any contact with the head or neck AREA makes it pretty much automatic) and there was clearly contact in that area. Those saying the helmet contact is incidental are ignoring the fact that he did lauch. Helmet contact might be incidental in certain plays, but here it shows the hit is high enough to warrant the foul -- the number "2" goes right into the neck AREA. And there's no question the contact was forcible.

If the officials missed this, I can understand why. But at slow motion, we need to agree this is the type of hit the committee wanted to eliminate. If the blocker doesn't launch, THEN we can talk about all sorts of things like incidental helmet contact, but I have to believe the intent of the rule is to eliminate the launch or at least keep the hit CLEARLY in the middle of the chest if it does happen.