Why was the targeting reversed?

Sorry not in game thread. I am at the game and hard to find stuff.

It looked like classic, textbook targeting

Did TV say anything?

Aloha,
Totally agree with you. Bad no call. TV commentators agreed with the call.
UA…Campus of Champions

It was the front top if the helment (not the face mask) hitting the front-side of the QB’s helmet, at near full speed, straight on. Not text book literal from a rules perspective, but exactly what the rule is for, especially on the QB.

1 Like

Cat got called for a shoulder last year

4 Likes

I don’t understand the targeting rule, but the only thing I can figure is that our runner lowered his head at the same time or about the same time.

Nobody understands the targeting rules…game and replay officials included.

1 Like

Yeah the targeting thing is a joke because it’s so inconsistent. That was a classic case of helmet to helmet,Stevie Wonder can see that but these clowns obviously could not.

2 Likes

Y’all are gonna think I’m crazy but i saw it as a bang bang play where the kid didn’t lower his helmet to spear etc and didn’t think he should be ejected. Had that been us or SC against Bama or UF or UGa I think the player would have been booted

I have always been told intent doesn’t matter.

On the game thread I said I have no idea any more what constitutes targeting. Because it’s different in every game.

1 Like

If that wasn’t considered targeting then they need to get rid of the call completely.

3 Likes

Don’t know rule inside and out and I’m as big a homer as they come but on that one play I just didn’t think he should be ejected.

I’ve thought targeting calls should’ve gone in Arkansas’ favor and against. Based on what I saw on the big screen at the stadium, I though it was for sure targeting call.

Not sure what angles TV had.

1 Like

Guess it just seemed very accidental to me. Again, don’t know the rule completely and know it’s inconsistent

At the UK & FL game just now, the blitzing FL corner drove his helmet into the QB’s facemask almost knocking it off as he de-cleted him for a sack. They threw the flag, called it targeting, and then over turned it on review. He hit the QB with the crown of his helmet in his nose if the facemask had not been in the way. I have no idea what constitutes targeting now!

3 Likes

It was a targeting call…was it, was it not? Whatever, but imo there was not clear suffcient evidence to overturn it!

1 Like

Defender’s helmet making contact with the ball carrier’s head first would seem to be the obvious definition and this was it.

The asshat color commentator sounded like he hadn’t ever played football, let alone been an NFL backup for years. His comment about KJ weighing 245 is meaningless - “defenseless” is not skewed due to size of defender and ball carrier.

2 Likes

It seems to me that there has been a conscious effort to reduce targeting calls this season. It’s not just in our games, but seemingly, in many games I’ve watched. There have been so many targeting calls upheld the last few seasons that the review process has caused many game delays. I’ve seen multiple overturns in review that, without a doubt, would have have been upheld the last few seasons.

I think someone has decided that the penalty for targeting is just too severe (even if the hit may result in permanent brain injury). Ejection is just “unfair.” Maybe if KJ had gotten up and staggered around a bit it might have influenced the final ruling from the jerks in B’ham.

I agree with Harley. I think there is an effort this year to use some judgement in making the call as opposed to making it automatic. I am ok with that. I did not think the kid deserved to get a flag because I did not think he did anything wrong. The literal rule might say otherwise. I really wish they would go to a different version of the rule where helmet to helmet, even unintentional, is a basic penalty. Flagrant launching and leading would constitute ejections and penalty.

1 Like