Apparently... targeting leaves a lot to interpretation.
TARGETING? Helmet-to-Helmet Contact?
- Thread starter KYJamm
- Start date
Well I had thought that any contact above the shoulders and below the knees was off limits for sacking a QB, and we saw that later in the game when a roughing was called for a defender diving at Levis knees.
Now I do think there are form tackles where face masks accidentally make contact with the helmet, but theres a difference between a head up tackle and the defender aiming high.
I hate targeting calls normally, I disagree with many of them. However, the defender aimed for the helmet and de-helmeted our QB who is already not supposed to be hit above the shoulders, I 1,000,000% believe that was targeting and I argue to the death that most calls, even calls in our favor are not targeting.
he did not need to make helmet to helmet contact to complete that sack and the brunt of the force was through his face mask which he used as a weapon, and again I hate when someone makes a form tackle and the face mask touches the helmet because the ball carrier ducts, that’s not what happened here. The guy obliterated Will high on purpose and went helmet to helmet on purpose, it should have stood as a targeting call, and thank ****ing god will was okay and could keep playing, because we’re multiple scores better than Florida at the end of the day, and to have our QB lost to a concussion was a real possibility on a play like that and I can’t believe they overturned the call.
Now I do think there are form tackles where face masks accidentally make contact with the helmet, but theres a difference between a head up tackle and the defender aiming high.
I hate targeting calls normally, I disagree with many of them. However, the defender aimed for the helmet and de-helmeted our QB who is already not supposed to be hit above the shoulders, I 1,000,000% believe that was targeting and I argue to the death that most calls, even calls in our favor are not targeting.
he did not need to make helmet to helmet contact to complete that sack and the brunt of the force was through his face mask which he used as a weapon, and again I hate when someone makes a form tackle and the face mask touches the helmet because the ball carrier ducts, that’s not what happened here. The guy obliterated Will high on purpose and went helmet to helmet on purpose, it should have stood as a targeting call, and thank ****ing god will was okay and could keep playing, because we’re multiple scores better than Florida at the end of the day, and to have our QB lost to a concussion was a real possibility on a play like that and I can’t believe they overturned the call.
They paid for that bs with an L.
Freaking moron refs
The whole point of a targeting penalty is to discourage hits to the head, punish those who do. And so for any lawsuits about CTE in the future, the NCAA can say "look, see, we take hits to the head seriously!!".
The whole point of a targeting penalty is to discourage hits to the head, punish those who do. And so for any lawsuits about CTE in the future, the NCAA can say "look, see, we take hits to the head seriously!!".
Even if not targeting its helmet to helmet especially to a QB and should be a penalty. Not only that but Levis had to sit out a play. Total BS. But the SEC office will have some bullshit answer for it
T hey changed the rule this year to be the "apex" or the top. Not the crown and face mask anymore. And must be an aggravating factor.
Was a needed change as we had facemasks scraping unintentionally leading to ejections.
But this one still was a textbook targeting even with the changes. I just don't understand at all how it was overturned.
Was a needed change as we had facemasks scraping unintentionally leading to ejections.
But this one still was a textbook targeting even with the changes. I just don't understand at all how it was overturned.
Minimum it’s roughing even with the rule change the guy tried to drive Levis helmet through the ground. Saw a similar hit in BYU Baylor game but it was a WR after the catch and was called targeting and player was ejected. Helmet to helmet face mask to face mask
Personally, I wouldn't have called it targeting.
But that's the problem...are we going by the rule book,, having sense, or just making it up as we go
But that's the problem...are we going by the rule book,, having sense, or just making it up as we go
I thought he drove through Levis and not up into him. It was very close, but I didn’t think it was targeting either.
Last edited:
Almost an identical play occurred in the BYU-Baylor game. That call was targeting with ejection which was the correct call. The no call vs Levis was BS.
It was targeting, wow can not believe the refs did not call it that way.
We had a tackle almost identical to that last year we got called for.
Personally I would prefer if they call it that way all the time. That should have been a clean tackle. However 90% time our guy gets ejected right there. The inconsistency is what is so frustrating.
I think the key is that the rule changed going into this year (thank god), so what was targeting last year, might not be targeting this year. Last year, that is 100% targeting. I thought the announcers did a decent job of explaining it.
I still think by the rules, it could have been interpreted as targeting, but I also like a 50/60ish type call not being called and the guy stay in the game.
I guess I don't understand the rule if that wasn't targeting. The guy could have put his shoulder into Levis's chest and drove him to the ground. But he led with his helmet. Ridiculous to overturn the call.
The rule change makes things more lenient, but I imagine that after several cervical spine injuries from guys trying to launch into someone with their facemask held high, we could once again see a reduction in targets like that.
Seriously, the way that guy hit Will is a recipe for how to do a ton of collateral to yourself. I always wonder about spinal compression when dudes spear the ball carriers, but at least sometimes the head can go down or up or to the sides. If the head is already craned back, well...
Seriously, the way that guy hit Will is a recipe for how to do a ton of collateral to yourself. I always wonder about spinal compression when dudes spear the ball carriers, but at least sometimes the head can go down or up or to the sides. If the head is already craned back, well...
The motion of the defender suddenly rotating the top of his head violently towards Levi's head, was obvious on film. Most obvious targeting I have ever seen.
If that was not a targeting penalty, that penalty needs to be eliminated and just stick with discretionary conduct or roughness penalties The penalty called on Florida later for tackling Levis was far more questionable. The two balance out but a QB standing in place is far more helpless than a RB running down the field in motion and often bigger than the dbs trying to tackle them. Many mystifying targeting calls with far less head to head impact than this one. Had UK hit the popular Florida QB that way, the UK guy would have been elected. Hope Geiger is ok.
SEC-SEC-SEC
Replay crew always has to check the jersey first to determine targeting..........and the point spread.
When the play happened, I thought it was a good play. But in the replay impact was higher than I originally thought. Looked like targeting as I understand the rule.
The defender definitely made contact above the shoulder. So roughing would’ve been a better call and more correct. He didn’t appear to lead with the crown of the helmet. His head was up like how it ‘used’ to be coached. See what you hit.
There would have no interpretation had the hit been against Richardson.
/\ This is what I don't get. It was a personal foul for a blow to the head of a QB!
The game reminds me of me of Bobby Bouden at Fla. State with all the dirty play. If Fla's new coach's team continues to play like they did yesterday the rest of the SEC will wipe them out.
That was targeting. The defensive player had all the time to hit the qb below the shoulders but chose to go high which to me suggest he was try to injure Will.
But on the same note these refs didn’t want to call anything especially pass interference or holding on receivers.
But on the same note these refs didn’t want to call anything especially pass interference or holding on receivers.
That was targeting on Levis, no doubt.
That said, the refs didn't call that horse collar on UK late in the game or the head to head hit on Richardson that occurred on the same play.
Make up call? Incompetence? Rule changes? Not sure, but that last call would have changed the game for sure. Glad the refs didn't call it.
That said, the refs didn't call that horse collar on UK late in the game or the head to head hit on Richardson that occurred on the same play.
Make up call? Incompetence? Rule changes? Not sure, but that last call would have changed the game for sure. Glad the refs didn't call it.
No question.
It wasn't a horse collar by definition. Player let go. Didn't take him to the ground.
The head contact was because Richardson was sliding down, and the defender was coming to his waist. Richardson lowering himself caused the minimal contact to the helmet.
I was surprised they didn't. Still surprised they calleda holding penalty against UF in The Swamp. Can't say I remember one in any game we've played there
Two things one it WAS targeting, two I have never seen them replay a hit like that as many times as they did last night and not call anything. It was high on the Quarterback, and he led with his helmet and all the announcers could do was say I don't know, it was close, friggin idiots. I lost respect for Greg McElroy, it was a vicious hit. Kentucky ruined his narrative, he hyped AR all week him and his partner just kept hoping AR would repreat what he did last week.
Look...I've never liked the targeting rules....but since they are in the books and they apply to us...they should apply against us. That is only fair. The video and rule are posted below. You can't hardly make an argument that the rule and video are concrete examples of targeting. He hit Levis right in facemask and could have launched at his shoulder or abdomen or thighs. He intentionally went to the upper chest/facemask area. Will didn't last moment lower his head that caused it. It's a joke to pick up the flag and it's always a joke in this league how they magically do nonsense like this that goes w.o explanation.
Go to 2:01 of the 2019 game....why is one targeting and another is not? And the announcers in both are arguing to keep the UK targeting and not the UF targeting.
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...
Go to 2:01 of the 2019 game....why is one targeting and another is not? And the announcers in both are arguing to keep the UK targeting and not the UF targeting.
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...
Last edited:
his whole left side of his face was bruised and swollen after halftime.
I don't think it was targeting. He hit him in the chest first, the helmet followed after. He did not crouch, launch or lunge towards the head area. It was a good, hard hit.
The other hit that was called was correct. He was hit low around the knees, and held on and twisted.
Was also a facemask missed on one of his sacks.
The other hit that was called was correct. He was hit low around the knees, and held on and twisted.
Was also a facemask missed on one of his sacks.
I agree with your comments. Has to be targeting when crown of helmet to face mask. The movement of the defensive player was upward as Levi’s’ head was knocked backward and the upward hit removed a strapped helmet
I'm just glad our QBs in practice take blind-side hits like a stand-up tackling dummy -- helped prepare Will for that one for sure....
Perfect example of this.
Trask lowered his head and Carter tried to lower his head away from it, still made the bullsht call. Levis was as straight up as he could get and the Florida guy went high instead of low. Helmet to face mask and chin. No question which one is actually targeting.
That doesn't happen without forcible contact with the helmet.
I feel like a lot of people need to actually read the rules on targeting. There are two types of targeting and helmet to helmet is not always targeting.
Against a defensless player, helmet to helmet should be targeting, as any hit to the head or neck area of a defensless player is targeting. But Levis's position was not one of the listed ones for defensless which are:
Most hits people say shouldn't have been targeting have a player leading with the crown of their helmet. If your facemask is pointing toward the ground, it doesn't matter where you hit the other player, it can be called targeting.
Against a defensless player, helmet to helmet should be targeting, as any hit to the head or neck area of a defensless player is targeting. But Levis's position was not one of the listed ones for defensless which are:
- A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
- A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
- A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
- A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
- A player on the ground.
- A player obviously out of the play.
- A player who receives a blind-side block.
- A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
- A quarterback any time after a change of possession A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst.
Most hits people say shouldn't have been targeting have a player leading with the crown of their helmet. If your facemask is pointing toward the ground, it doesn't matter where you hit the other player, it can be called targeting.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
***** OFFICIAL KENTUCKY VS TEXAS GAME THREAD *****- Latest: CrimsonCats
-
-
-
