Targeting?

[BankerRef]

Is this not what we should be calling as targeting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nykSSpiIu9M

[maven]

I see two B players approaching A8: B5 makes legal contact leading with his arm in A8's torso, and B9 misses A8 and hits his teammate.

Which one are you proposing to flag for targeting?

[El Macman]

To his credit, 5 turned his head to avoid contacting the receiver above the shoulders with this head, and only made contact below the head, and not with the crown of his helmet. 9 probably wanted to hit the receiver with his helmet, but he missed the receiver entirely.

No foul. But 9 was certainly trying.

[BankerRef]

I'm sorry but the contact by number 9 with the receiver is clear and to the head.

[Etref]

I'm sorry but the contact by number 9 with the receiver is clear and to the head.

Too much of an Aggie fan   

[Welpe]

I'm sorry but the contact by number 9 with the receiver is clear and to the head.

Sorry, I'm with the others, I'm not seeing targeting.

[TXMike]

I got nothing but props to the 2 zebras for not getting snookered by 9's actions.  Way too many guys see that helmet tuck like that and they are going for yellow, even if there is no contact.  Good attempt by 5 to legally  level the receiver.

[TXMike]

Maybe #9 learned a lesson in this game.  Chck out what happened later on:

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/9/8/3303671/jelani-jenkins-injury-florida-texas-am

[BankerRef]

Try watching the receiver's head and body.  Physically impossible to snap his head and change body direction the way he does without the force of contact from number 9.

[Kalle]

OK, after several slow motion replays, I agree with BankerRef that there is contact to the head by B9. I still don't think he initiates contact to the head, it looks like there is a shoulder contact first. Definitely not an all-American targeting action, although I think B9 is attempting to target but the previous contact causes him to "miss".

[Welpe]

I still don't think he initiates contact to the head, it looks like there is a shoulder contact first.

If anything, I believe it is this. Ergo, no targeting.

[clearwall]

IMHO, Im saying if he had landed that hit, you'd prob have targeting. I think the fact that he missed makes it no foul. I believe he lowered his head with the intent of hitting the receiver with his crown, but missed. He also leaps, which adds to my belief that there was ill-will in this play. But as others here have said, the hit was not leveled and therefore no foul.