But, let’s all understand what ‘flagrant’ means with respect to the UIL exception. It doesn’t necessarily mean it was any more vicious or malicious than other targeting action; only that the officials could positively determine all of the conditions of targeting were clearly present (which are different for 9-1-3 vs. 9-1-4). If the crew determines all conditions were present, then, per UIL, we classify this as a ‘flagrant targeting,’ which includes the disqualification.
However, if the crew suspects that all of the conditions were present, but can’t absolutely determine that some element was there, then, per UIL, they have the option to call this ‘targeting,’ and the player is not disqualified (unless it is his second ‘targeting’ foul of the game).
The most common element that might be in question is the “indicator.” There may be forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player, but the crew can’t be 100% positive there was a launch, upward thrust, or other attacking action. These things happen so fast, they may conclude there probably was an indicator, but no one can confirm there was clearly an indicator, so they elect to call it targeting, and not flagrant targeting.
For anyone in Texas that isn’t aware, the THSCA and the UIL formulated this exception, to help increase the number of targeting calls, in an effort to reduce the number of dangerous hits on players by giving officials a way to penalize a suspected targeting foul without requiring the player to be DQd. The THSCA and UIL both felt (probably correctly) that officials were reluctant to make some calls for fear of DQing a player incorrectly, and that many dangerous hits were getting by out there.
After one season, the exception can be said to be quite successful. More overall targeting fouls called, and far fewer big hits attempted.
