Is this targeting?

[reckrider]

The slap to King’s face mask when he was on the ground was egregious. It didn’t even warrant a review.

 

[WreckinGT]

I legitimately don't know if this is targeting. After years im still not clear on the rule. The defender does lead with the crown but doesn't really launch and the runner is not defenseless and does duck his head in defense before the hit comes which makes it look worse. They could have called this either way and I still wouldn't understand why.

 

[iceeater1969]

Here is a pic an alabama fan sent me.
Sure looks like helmet hit crown into area nesr head.

 

[Root4GT]

They reviewed the fumble, not targeting.

They reviewed the play. The fumble was clear and obvious.

 

[33jacket]

I legitimately don't know if this is targeting. After years im still not clear on the rule. The defender does lead with the crown but doesn't really launch and the runner is not defenseless and does duck his head in defense before the hit comes which makes it look worse. They could have called this either way and I still wouldn't understand why.

Its one or the other. Leading with crown. Or launching at defenseless player

This would be the first. Leading with crown.

By rule. Yes. It’s targeting. Was never reviewed.

 

[yeti92]

Couldn't make it more textbook if you hired McGraw-Hill to publish it.

 

[Lil G]

They reviewed the fumble, not targeting.

This reminds me of police forces investigating themselves after a brutal civilian beatdown and finding no wrongdoing. They’re on the same side my brother.

 

[GTech63]

Lots of offensive holding not called.

 

[Jacket4Life]

100% Targeting, but we lost because our kicker missed an extra point distance FG. He hits that FG overtime never happens.

 

[Jacket05]

100% Targeting, but we lost because our kicker missed an extra point distance FG. He hits that FG overtime never happens.

If he hits that field goal the play calls from both sides the rest of the game changes so you can't blame the whole game on him.

 

[bke1984]

This was upsetting, but not nearly as much as the bogus PI calls they got on those drives. Particularly the one where the ****ing ball was tipped at the LOS. I’m telling you, games ending like this are really lending credibility to the arguments that refs help shift games to go the way that is best for TV money. I’m losing faith in the system itself here.

But bottom line, King doesn’t fumble and we probably win. He played a hell of a game despite all that nonsense.

 

[GT33]

Here’s the rat bastard responsible for our misery. He’ll probably sleep good at night knowing he was an integral part of his team’s win.

 

[Darthdad]

Is this a hold. Or illegal hands to the face?

No call

In real time when the play first happened, I saw it as a facemask penalty.

 

[Darthdad]

I legitimately don't know if this is targeting. After years im still not clear on the rule. The defender does lead with the crown but doesn't really launch and the runner is not defenseless and does duck his head in defense before the hit comes which makes it look worse. They could have called this either way and I still wouldn't understand why.

Per the rules, it is indeed targeting.

Rule 9-1-3

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I).

Here's the link: https://www.dfoa.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-NCAA-Football-Rules.pdf

See FR-96 and FR-97 (for the penalty).

As someone else posted, you wouldn't see King's helmet move like that unless the defender hit King's helmet. This was unquestionably targeting and should have resulted in a flag, automatic first down for Tech, and an ejection of Jackson from the game. Of course, if they did that then he'd also miss the first half of the SECCG, and we can't have that can we. Note that Jackson had already been disqualified from the Texas game for targeting, meaning that doing so against Tech would put him in jeopardy of a third offense in the same season. Under the rules, a third targeting penalty in the same season results in an automatic one game suspension, which would be in the playoffs.

 

[stinger78]

Dude nobody is gonna be happy for nine months (or ever) about this regardless of who they blame

Give him about 5 more of these type games.

 

[stinger78]

100% Targeting, but we lost because our kicker missed an extra point distance FG. He hits that FG overtime never happens.

They call targeting it’s first and 10 with 2 minutes left and we win.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The play was reviewed. The ref came on after the TV TO and said the ruling of a Georgia recovery stands. The defender put his helmet into the ball. That is legal. Tough break for GT and it turned the game.

No, that’s not what the review was about. There was no mention of the obvious targeting. He put the crown of his helmet under the chin of the runner. The ball was 8 inches below where he made contact. Even if it’s not targeting, it’s spearing, which is also illegal. Just piss poor officiating all night.

 

[wvGT11]

Leaving this here

 

[AugustaSwarm]

This reminds me of police forces investigating themselves after a brutal civilian beatdown and finding no wrongdoing. They’re on the same side my brother.

It was an unbelievably terrible missed call. The fact that the booth reviewed the fumble and still did nothing about the clear "leading with the crown of the helmet" is unacceptable.

 

[Fatmike91]

#14 is a walk on. This was the 3rd time in the game I saw him lead with the helmet. That makes me question if it's intentional and coached.

/