Targeting (Auburn vs Jax State)

[bama_stripes]

It appears the defender had already committed before the runner began his slide, and would have made a legal hit had the runner stayed upright.  Does that matter under NCAA targeting rules?

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=13637082

[Kalle]

By rule, yes, as you need to actually target the head or neck area. Then again, by rule this could not be targeting as the ball carrier is not a defenseless player.

[Joe Stack]

I can't get any video to work, but Kalle's statement is incorrect. Targeting is also done with a hit by the crown of the helmet against any player, to any area of the body -- not just heaad or neck of a defenseless player. Targeting is also a when in question (yes) rule.

A defensive player is responsible for ALL contact, regardless of what the offensive player does.

[ncwingman]

This is why I like the "new" Fed rule that reemphasizes spearing as a foul that should be treated like targeting.

Targeting is hitting a player above the shoulders. Spearing is using the crown of your helmet as the initial point of contact anywhere on a player. Both are personal fouls with the potential for ejection, and it eliminates the confusion where a player can "target" without contacting the other player's head or neck area.

[Kalle]

I can't get any video to work, but Kalle's statement is incorrect.

True, I should have said that by rule it could not be rule 9-1-4 targeting.

[BrendanP]

Late hit yes, targeting, no. Any idea why replay didn't overturn it?

[Legacy Zebra]

If it's a late hit, how is it not targeting? If you're saying its a late hit because he's on the ground, then by definition he is defenseless. And forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player is targeting. If you have a late hit here, what logic are you using to say it is not targeting?

[BrendanP]

If it's a late hit, how is it not targeting? If you're saying its a late hit because he's on the ground, then by definition he is defenseless. And forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player is targeting. If you have a late hit here, what logic are you using to say it is not targeting?

To me it looked like he lowered his head in an attempt to avoid making contact in the "targeting zone" for lack of a better term. It didn't look vicious enough to be the kind of hit that the rule is there to try to prevent, and it looked like he really did try to wrap him up, but alas, there's water under the bridge and my opinion on the matter means nothing.

[yarnnelg]

Define crown of the helmet. Then look at the defensive player's helmet just in front of the offensive players helmet. It wasn't a late hit because the offensive player is in his slide unless you think the defense can magically change direction in flight to avoid the contact. At worst case, it should have been a late hit protecting the QB and wave off the flag for targeting on the over rule by replay.