Ohio State Targeting

[Derek Teigen]

Did anybody else see the no call of the hit to the head on a Minnesota receiver late in the game?  It looked like the Ohio state player led with the crown of his head and hit the head of a defenseless receiver.

What I am most concerned about was they did not even review it.  There are was a breakdown in communication because can't the review team look at it and make a ruling even if not asked for by the on field crew?

[ncwingman]

In case anybody hasn't seen the hit

I did not see the actual play, so I can't comment on communication breakdowns, but I'm curious what others think of it.

[dammitbobby]

I think it was a good no call. Wasn’t 9-1-3 since I don’t think he led with the crown - I think he drove through his shoulder, and helmet contact was after that.

[ElvisLives]

I think it was a good no call. Wasn’t 9-1-3 since I don’t think he led with the crown - I think he drove through his shoulder, and helmet contact was after that.

Just because initial contact may be with a shoulder, that does not relieve the attacker of responsibility to avoid targeting contact to the head-neck area of a defenseless player. The indicator is there - he lead with his head. The contact was forcible. And the receiver was still defenseless. This was targeting.

By contrast, I saw a play in a C-USA game a couple days ago in which the defender made forcible contact to the head of a receiver just after he caught the ball, but the defender was simply running straight ahead, vertically upright, and just ran through the receiver. There was no indicator, at all. No foul, and, correctly, no call.

[TXMike]

Is this the play?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4vej9n4Blw


  https://twitter.com/NotScTop10plays/status/1433633558703267842?s=20

[dammitbobby]

yes

[bama_stripes]

The purpose of the targeting rule is to get defensive players to lower their “strike zone.”  This defender had the opportunity to do so, but chose not to.

Missed call.