ND @ Texas Targeting or not?

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

From the 2016 NCAA rule book, rule 9-1-4 (bolded part was added this year):


As far as I can tell, none of the indicators are present in this play. In fact, you can see the defender trying to turn to hit with his shoulder rather than his helmet or forearm.

Last year, this would've been targeting, this year it isn't.

Really? The TX player makes no attempt to wrap up, he's coming in on a beeline with his head down, fully intent on a kill shot. He does his little stomp dance after it, confirming it. He's leading with the helmet (indicator one), lowering the head and initiating contact with the crown (indicator two) - yea, some shoulder is involved too - I'm not Zaprudering it to that level to nitpick on how much, and while it's not an upward thrust, there certainly is a forward thrust (indicator three).

This was an egregious miss IMO.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by scrounge

This was an egregious miss IMO.

I disagree that it is egregious. If the player is a little higher he hits him in the chest. That is why I am conflicted because other than the hardness of the hit, I am not sure what the defender is to do. He does not hit him late at all, he hits him right when the ball arrives. Again, I am OK if they had called this, but I think this is a hole in the rule for what the defenders are supposed to do.

I personally had a much similar hit without the ball and it was not supported by video in a D3 game and there was more head movement on impact in my play. I think the only reason this was really considered a foul was because the player got hurt as a result, which is not the only reason we should have considered a foul here in my opinion. I do support the call if that is what they want, but tough at fast speed considering that he does not do the typical indicators that were are asked to look for.

Peace