Ok, let me get my grumpy BUTT old man nonsense out of the way, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NON FLAGRANT TARGETTING.
See, prior to this rule change I would 100% agree with you on that, but the UIL rule change says there can be, and that's why I'm now trying to wrap my head around how a targeting foul could be considered non-flagrant... but, that is the direction we were given, that it is a possibility.
On clips 1 and 4 how do you get to non flagrant? Both have clear indicators and seem to be obvious targeting fouls to me. Therefore, they would not be non flagrant, if we as a crew had a clear view then that's what should be called. Not trying to say I'm right just curious as to the different views here.
Because of the new UIL rule verbiage:
(UIL NOTE: In accordance with Rule 9-1-3 & Rule 9-1-4, when in question as to whether there is a foul for targeting, a foul should be called. If the foul is flagrant ("contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury"), the player shall be disqualified. If the foul is the player's first targeting foul of the game,
AND the foul is deemed not to be flagrant, the foul does not require disqualification. A second targeting foul by the same player in the same game is automatically classified as flagrant and therefore requires the player to be disqualified.
So from that, I infer that the flagrant/nonflagrant portion of the targeting call, is a judgement call. And that's what I am trying to process here. For 1 and 4, my judgement is that the contact wasn't intentionally trying to harm the player (and yes I know and understand that is not part of the rule language, but without any other official guidance, how else am I to determine what is/is not flagrant?) and while it might meet the strict letter of the rule, the action/consequences to the opponents in 1 and 4 were not significant enough to categorize as flagrant.
