I felt the same way at the game, after the game and today reading this post. Then, I decided to read the rules. To be honest, I have never read the rules on targeting, I simply listened to announcers and made assumptions that it always involved the crown of the helmet. Clearly, there was no leading with the crown of the helmet in this play.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
SO why do we think it has to be the crown of the helmet? Because there are TWO articles involved with Targeting in the rulebook.
Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3:
“No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of the helmet.”
This article requires the crown of the helmet as well as the attribute of targeting and forcible contact. This is the common understanding we all know as targeting and applies to ALL plays and ALL situations. In this case, there was no forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. So why did they call targeting? That is because of article 4 of Rule 9, Section 1.
Rule 9, Section 1, Article 4:
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.
Lets breakdown each component of this definition with regard to this particular play by Askelson. I am not an expert, I am merely trying to understand the rules and how the officials are interpreting the rules on each play.
(1) Target
In my understanding of the rules, Askleson was clearly targeting the player. Targeting does not mean breaking the rules or trying to hurt someone. It means there has to be one indicator of targeting. (and targeting in and of itself is NOT a foul as strictly defined. It is simply how the player leads to the tackle). There must be one indicator of targeting.
2) One indicator
There are four defined indicators of targeting. The one that applies in this case:
Leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack the head or neck area forcibly.
In the context of the rule, it means they are taking aim at the player that goes beyond a legal tackle by leading with the helmet, shoulder, etc. This in and of itself does not mandate a targeting call but there must be an indicator and in this case it is pretty obvious in the replay that Asekson is “leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm.” Before you say ‘but it was not intentional or he only grazed him,’ read on.
3) Defenseless player
This is a key part of article 4. Article 3 applies to all plays (leading with the crown of the helmet). However, article 4 only applies to defenseless players. There are 9 definitions of a defenseless player. We don’t need to review them all but one clearly applies
A quarterback …. who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first
This is a key point and one every player understands. Once a QB starts to slide, the play is essentially dead and the ball is spotted at the point of the foul. In this case, the QB has started his slide 1-2 seconds before Askelson gets to him. The player must do everything possible to avoid contact with helmet, shoulder, etc. once the QB has started the slide. This is likely the main reason for the call in this case. It is essentially the difference between a targeting call and a roughing the passing call when the QB is throwing the ball.
4) Forcible contact to head or neck
I agree this is the section of the rule that is an interpretation. It is clear the “targeting” is to the head or neck area. Is it “forcible contact?” I have watched the twitter video a dozen times in slow motion and while O’Reilly’s helmet (#43) obscures the view slighty, I do see the QB’s helmet move quickly down to the ground. That movement is almost certainly caused by contact by Askelson’s helmet or shoulders. I grant it is not severe or malicious or harmful… but the rules do NOT give the officials the judgement in this case. They have to call targeting. I believe this is what the officials saw in the replay.
5) Contact with helmet, forearm, hand, fist elbow or shoulder
See above. It is clearly his helmet or shoulder that initiates the contact. In fact, further review of the video seems to indicate Askelson’s left shoulder is likely the main point of contact and the cause of the foul, not the glancing blow by the helmet.
6) When in question, it is a foul
Finally, the officials are taught and it is in the rules that if there is ANY question about targeting, it is a foul and must be called. This leaves the officials with very little wiggle room. They must confirm or overturn the call. They cannot allow the call to “Stand”. In rules jargon, it must be clearly NOT targeting.
So my final answer?
1) The rule is designed to avoid injuries.
2) The penalty is severe so coaches change what they teach and players learn differently.
3) Is there some judgment in these calls? Most certainly
4) Was it targeting in this case? I believe it was because the QB was clearly a defenseless player and that is always a place where officials are taught to error on the side of safety.
5) Could the rule be improved? Certainly, and I there have been three or four changes to the rule since 2008. I think the main future improvement would be a two stage or two level application where one level is a personal foul and the second is disqualification.
6) Are targeting calls missed in a game? Of course. but that doesn't make it a bad call. Should they have called it on the Tommy Mellot hit last year at EWU? Maybe but I watched that replay 10 times and the player actually sailed over Tommy and Tommy made contact with the ground and that caused the concussion. But just because officials miss a call, it does not make it a bad call when they do one right. Four missed holding calls in game does not make the 5th time when the officials catch holding and throw the flag a bad call!
6) Do I like the call? Not a chance but I honestly think the officials were doing their job as best as possible and the rule is designed to make the call when there is any question.
I believe they made the right call. Feel free to disagree.
