'Rique's Targeting Call

[BurdellJacket]

Man I hate that he got ejected but that is going to be a targeting penalty every time. He lowers his head as he makes the tackle and initiates contact with the crown of his helmet ontoerstNd the Clemson players helmet. If he had kept his head up it would have been a clean hit but lowering it like that will get the penalty 100% of the time.

In addition, one of the main reasons for that penalty is to protect from injuries like what happened to Tariq on the play.

I understand you and TECHNICALLY I guess you are correct BUT it is a stupid *** rule. It takes TWO PLAYERS to bang helmuts together and the way the rule is abused it's ALWAYS called against the defender. If I am a offensive coach/coordinator, I'm going to teach my ball carriers to always lower their head into the defender thus getting a 15 yard penalty called on them and getting one of their best players thrown out of the game.

 

[yeti92]

The Targeting rule is in place to protect the defender as well. The fact that it was dangerous for Carpenter isn’t helping your case.

To protect the defender from a neck or spinal injury, not from getting hit in the side of the head. It was only dangerous to carpenter because the ball carrier lowered his head and hit carpenter, otherwise there wouldn't have even been helmet to helmet contact.

 

[GCdaJuiceMan]

I didn’t like the call and it’s a tough one for the ref to make, unfortunately it seems like they err on the side of caution and throw the flag just in case. Then it’s hard to reverse. Either way…

Does this mean we don’t have Riq for the first half next week? That’s the worst part of this damn rule.

 

[slugboy]

Yes, Tariq misses the first half of UNC.

 

[Ash]

The only part of the call that rubbed me wrong was apprently the crowd booed enough to get a review after seeing the replay on the big screen.

 

[yeti92]

nm

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

To protect the defender from a neck or spinal injury, not from getting hit in the side of the head. It was only dangerous to carpenter because the ball carrier lowered his head and hit carpenter, otherwise there wouldn't have even been helmet to helmet contact.

It was dangerous for him because he lowered and lead with his head.

 

[Lotta Booze]

It was just a poor tackle. The runner didn't lower his head any more than you would expect when bracing for a hit. Tariq went too high. He got hit on the side of his helmet because he placed it directly in front of the runners helmet and hit him high with his shoulder. Don't really have an issue with the call other than it seemed the crowd influenced the refs to call it.

 

[Fatmike91]

I was fine with the call at the time.

There were some other calls in the game such as the phantom hold that may have changed the outcome of the game.

/

 

[ibeattetris]

No—it’s the same in the pros. Even Tom Brady was complaining that the way the rule is set, it rewards QBs for making bad plays and putting their receivers in a bad position.

No one calls or reviews the offensive player for targeting. The rule would be better and probably make the game safer if both players were reviewed and one or both could get ejected.

The rule is one of the reasons why players are learning rugby-style tackles where they go for the legs. The offensive players are lowering their heads even more because of it.

Or hurdling the defenders more.

 

[RamblinRed]

This one was a pretty easy and correct call. As others have mentioned there were other calls that seemed alot worse.

FWIW, just like many of the GT fans the Clemson fans are complaining bitterly about the officiating. In particular they feel the GT OL was holding all night long and the refs weren't calling any of them.

 

[YJMD]

It was just a poor tackle. The runner didn't lower his head any more than you would expect when bracing for a hit. Tariq went too high. He got hit on the side of his helmet because he placed it directly in front of the runners helmet and hit him high with his shoulder. Don't really have an issue with the call other than it seemed the crowd influenced the refs to call it.

View attachment 11214
View attachment 11215

Those are good pictures. FYI here's the rulebook: https://www.dfoa.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-NCAA-FB-Rulebook.pdf

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 portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask. 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)

Clearly from the pictures he dipped his head and made forcible contact with an area above the top of the facemask. Here are the indicators from Note 1:

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

I bolded the one that definitely applies since he dipped his head. This was textbook targeting. Not a dirty play by Riq but being emphasized for players to try and keep their heads up. I don't doubt he was trying to tackle with his shoulder. But that doesn't matter for the rules.

Of note, there is a separate less strict rule for targeting against a defenseless player. Here the runner was clearly not defenseless.

 

[Skeptic]

Yea, was a BS call IMO. Rique lowered his head (literally every football player does this every time they hit someone), but he made contact with his shoulder, and the ballcarrier certainly wasn't defenseless and lowered his crown into the side of Tariq's head. The refs were horrible all night, arbitrary targeting calls (why was the dirty hit on Yates at the end not targeting?), managed to miss Clemson holding every single play right in front of the refs but make phantom holding calls on us that even the garbage announcers were calling them out on.

Makes no difference whether he leads with the crown against the head or the shoulder. Or the ribs. Leading with the crown of the helmet is targeting, period. I think you had a hard night. The refs aren't favoring anybody. If anybody should have been penalized it was the announcers.

 

[yeti92]

Makes no difference whether he leads with the crown against the head or the shoulder. Or the ribs. Leading with the crown of the helmet is targeting, period. I think you had a hard night. The refs aren't favoring anybody. If anybody should have been penalized it was the announcers.

Its not leading with the crown if the crown never hit the other player. It didn't, you don't seem to know what the crown is.

I will say that based on YJMD and lotta juice's posts, I was incorrect and it was targeting - not for leading with the crown, but for going high and leading with the shoulder. Stupid, but that's how the rule is written.

My night was fine btw, idk why you think that other than just trying to make a dig at me.

 

[Ash]

FWIW, just like many of the GT fans the Clemson fans are complaining bitterly about the officiating. In particular they feel the GT OL was holding all night long and the refs weren't calling any of them.

I don't know about all night long, but there was one play late in the game I know we got away with a big hold. Overall, I thought the officating was equally bad on bothj sides.

 

[YJMD]

Makes no difference whether he leads with the crown against the head or the shoulder. Or the ribs. Leading with the crown of the helmet is targeting, period. I think you had a hard night. The refs aren't favoring anybody. If anybody should have been penalized it was the announcers.

See above. There needs to be an "indicator" (in this case there clearly was), but yeah where the contact is made is irrelevant when it is forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

The head/neck area rule is for defenseless players. For that, it does not have to be the helmet:

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

If the player is not defenseless as above, it must be forcible contact with the crown + indicator of targeting.

 

[Skeptic]

Its not leading with the crown if the crown never hit the other player. It didn't, you don't seem to know what the crown is.

I will say that based on YJMD and lotta juice's posts, I was incorrect and it was targeting - not for leading with the crown, but for going high and leading with the shoulder. Stupid, but that's how the rule is written.

My night was fine btw, idk why you think that other than just trying to make a dig at me.

Not digging. You seemed preoccupied with the officiating.

 

[yeti92]

See above. There needs to be an "indicator" (in this case there clearly was), but yeah where the contact is made is irrelevant when it is forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

The head/neck area rule is for defenseless players. For that, it does not have to be the helmet:


If the player is not defenseless as above, it must be forcible contact with the crown + indicator of targeting.

I change my position back then, it was not targeting as he was not defenseless and never made contact with the crown.

 

[yeti92]

Not digging. You seemed preoccupied with the officiating.

2 posts prior to that comment in a thread specifically about that topic is preoccupied to you? ok then...

What should we do in this thread titled "'Rique's Targeting Call" if not discuss the officiating on that play and the rule itself?

 

[YJMD]

I change my position back then, it was not targeting as he was not defenseless and never made contact with the crown.

The video evidence disagrees.