Is this Targeting?

[youthsportsPIX]

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.  

 

 

[Titanmike]

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.

[BIGPURPLEMACHINE]

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 September 2, 2019 by BIGPURPLEMACHINE

[orngnblk]

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!

[gcapride]

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.

[Southtowner]

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 September 5, 2019 by Southtowner

[gcapride]

Exactly what I said, nowhere in the rule book does it list a foul as "Targeting"

[chainsaw2]

Blow to the head with helmet, personal foul.  I watched your entire video and saw lots of non-calls the other team got away with.

[MavMan05]

Yes