Not sure saying that the replay official confirmed something means that enough is said. Kinda defeats the point of conversation if that is accurate. I get why targeting was called but I just wish a little duck (IMO and not necessarily accurate) at the end of an otherwise clean tackle gets a player ejected.
It doesnt change anything from TXMikes video but here is another link: https://youtu.be/qB9GPnwROhI
I have a feeling you didn’t write what you meant. I think you believe this should not have been called targeting, and he should not have been disqualified.
Here is why it was, and he was:
The purpose of the targeting rules is to change the way the game has been played. The primary focus of the rules is to get players to STOP using their helmets as weapons of punishment, and to stop players from focusing on the opponent’s head as a point of contact when blocking or tackling.
9-1-3 takes care of spearing, which has always been illegal, but was upgraded to targeting, with automatic disqualification.
9-1-4 covers contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless opponent. There is a long list of what qualifies as ‘defenseless,’ and a receiver that has not yet transitioned to a ball carrier (by definition), as in this case, is on that list.
Both 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 require the contact the be an “attacking” action (as opposed to incidental contact), an “indicator,” and forcible contact. There are a number of indicators, and leading with the head, as in this case, is an indicator. You can call it a “little duck” if you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that this guy intentionally led with his head and made attacking contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless opponent. The “forcible contact” criterion is subjective, but the fact that receiver’s head snaps back violently pretty well confirms the ‘forcible contact’ element.
All of the boxes for 9-1-4 targeting are checked. Therefore, this is targeting.
If he didn’t want to risk getting a targeting foul, he could have just as easily dropped and turned his body to lead with his shoulder into the chest/abdomen area of the receiver. That would likely have had the same competitive effect, i.e, causing an incomplete pass, without resulting in a foul.
The targeting rules are working. There are distinctly fewer targeting fouls than before these rules were implemented. But the culture of punishing/hurting/inflicting pain on the opponent still persists. Until that culture changes, we’ll still have targeting fouls. When coaches teach, and players learn, to turn their heads to the side, and truly ‘tackle’ ball carriers (rather than just hit them as hard as possible), and avoid contact to the opponent’s head/neck areas, then targeting fouls will become unusual, if not rare.
