Askelson Targeting Penalty

[coloradocat]

A Wyoming player just launched at the Fresno St QB and hit him helmet to helmet after the QB threw the ball. No targeting.

[CPACAT]

The thing about targeting is that it's not designed to be fair. It's designed to protect the offensive player regardless of the situation. The rule isn't concerned with what the defensive player can/can't do in a particular situation. If he even comes close to hitting the ball carrier in the head, or appears to be aiming to, there's an opportunity to get flagged and the "review" will side with the offense. It's not so much that a particular call was wrong, but that the rule is.

This.

The rule is very clear. Forcible contact does not have to be intentional or malicious. It can even be incidental. @kmax references the 'secondary source' that is was NOT the helmet or facemask grazing the QB, it was the shoulder. The rule is very clear that it can be forearm, shoulder, helmet etc to the neck. In addition, the rule basically states if the official on the field OR in the booth has any doubt, they MUST call targeting. It is NOT a foul that has to be confirmed. Rather, it has to be unequivocally denied in order to not be called a foul. I agree that the rule is the problem and to some degree the inconsistent application but the actual facts are fairly clear. IMHO, the hit meets the definition of the rule because the rule's intent is to protect the head and neck of defenseless players. The rule is actually intended to change the way coaches teach and players learn. We can argue it doesn't work very well or the human refs are too inconsistent or the reviewing official is too cautious but ultimately the rule is trying to save players from serious injuries by changing the way players tackle. It likely is no one's favorite rule but sure seems like it is having the desired effect.

Again, I will reiterate my point. Did some part of Askelson hit the QB's head/neck area? Yes, barely but yes. BUT the rule clearly spells out for a targeting foul that "No player shall target and make forcible contact." I get that the targeting foul is much broader in definition than we as fans tend to think of and that it is more than just the leading with the crown of the helmet. I also get that the idea of "forcible contact" is an incredibly gray, judgement call. But if anyone can tell me how on this play the contact between Askelson and the QB is in any way forcible I would astonished and ask them if they have ever actually watched let alone played football before.

The thing that bothers me is that it is so inconsistent from crew to crew. I would like to see it does like basketball with 2 types so that kids are not automatically ejected.

[Montanabob]

A Wyoming player just launched at the Fresno St QB and hit him helmet to helmet after the QB threw the ball. No targeting.

i believe it is the same pool of refs that the BSC uses, so no, it was a normal call.

[BleedingBLue]

A Wyoming player just launched at the Fresno St QB and hit him helmet to helmet after the QB threw the ball. No targeting.

i believe it is the same pool of refs that the BSC uses, so no, it was a normal call.

It's not. The PAC-12 and MWC have a small handful of officials they will bring up for OOC games, and very rarely will use a full crew from the BSC if there are more OOC home games than crews.

[94VegasCat]

So will Askelson be available in the first half or the second half against Cal Poly?

[CatBot]

So will Askelson be available in the first half or the second half against Cal Poly?

Full game for Poly. His penalty was in the first half.

[94VegasCat]

So will Askelson be available in the first half or the second half against Cal Poly?

Full game for Poly. His penalty was in the first half.

Thank you kindly