Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Violet
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Maroon
  • Orange
  • Gold
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Welcome to the upgraded message boards!  Please note: if you have been using a username to sign in that is different than the handle (display name) displayed on the boards, you must now sign in with either your handle (display name) or the email address associated with your account.  If you don't know what this means, then it probably doesn't affect you!

youthsportsPIX

Is this Targeting?

Recommended Posts

Is this a targeting call? Curious what other people think if this a Targeting Helmet to Helmet hit? There was a no call on the field from this viscous hit that happened directly in front of two separate refs.  Defensive player led with his helmet.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

College it would be targeting and ejection. Pros targeting and penalty. Not sure if TN high school has that rule but since he was on the ground before the hit I would call it a personal foul at least. Clearly a blow to the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, youthsportsPIX said:

Is this a targeting call? Curious what other people think if this a Targeting Helmet to Helmet hit? There was a no call on the field from this viscous hit that happened directly in front of two separate refs.  Defensive player led with his helmet.  

 

 

Too me I would call unnecessary roughness on the play rather than helmet to helmet. This is just my opinion but I don’t think the player was purposely trying to lead with his helmet. It looked as if his right shoulder dipped when you put it in slow motion. If you were trying to lead with your helmet both shoulders would probably stay even and your head would dip. I think he was trying to make a big hit with his right shoulder.  However that was not necessary and should have been a penalty as the player was going down and could not defend himself. Just my two cents. However I wouldn’t blame a ref for making either penalty call there. It happened so fast that it would be a judgement call. I do feel a no call in that situation is wrong though. 

Edited by BIGPURPLEMACHINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BIGPURPLEMACHINE said:

Too me I would call unnecessary roughness on the play rather than helmet to helmet. This is just my opinion but I don’t think the player was purposely trying to lead with his helmet. It looked as if his right shoulder dipped when you put it in slow motion. If you were trying to lead with your helmet both shoulders would probably stay even and your head would dip. I think he was trying to make a big hit with his right shoulder.  However that was not necessary and should have been a penalty as the player was going down and could not defend himself. Just my two cents. However I wouldn’t blame a ref for making either penalty call there. It happened so fast that it would be a judgement call. I do feel a no call in that situation is wrong though. 

Yes unnecessary roughness,helmet to helmet should have def been called very dangerous hit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the no call. The defensive player looks to lead with his shoulder and has his forearm out in front of him. I don't see anything that would warrant a flag in this situation. It was a very hard hit on a receiver trying to make a play. In TN HS football, there's not a "targeting" penalty. We had a 15 yard penalty on a hit on a defenseless player called on us in our 1st game, and it was the right call. The other team wanted an ejection, but that's not in the rules for TN HS Football. It's a 15 yard penalty, play on. This one was bang / bang and I side with the officials on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gametimect.com/nfhs-adds-targeting-rule-high-school-football/amp/

Effective with the 2014 high school season, Rule 2-43 will read as follows: 'Targeting is an act of taking aim and initiating contact to an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.' The penalty will be enforced as an illegal personal contact.Apr 8, 2014

Edited by Southtowner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...