Targeting calls Week 2 of College Football
 

Was this targeting?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T4I2ARZ3Sx8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not called targeting, there was another foul on this play.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xp2u4KYyBKw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I will add if I find any others.

Peace

BYU players were ejected for targeting on back-to-back plays vs. Utah - SBNation.com (though it comes with the sportswriters analysis)

Yes on the Michigan play. I don't think the receiver is considered defenseless on this play (he's already turned upfield when the contact occurs), but the defender does make forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

Less certain on the second play, from that camera angle it looks like the forcible contact is shoulder to shoulder. Another camera angle (from C's POV) might have a different conclusion.

I think he is defenseless, but that does not mean any hit on him is a foul.

I think the NCAA has made this so narrow, that any hit we think should stand. I understand why it was called, but I do not think it was a ultimately correct. But I do get it in this day and age.

I do agree that this does appear to be shoulder hit in the chest. It just stood out to me when looking at the game as a possible call that I was wondering what the BIG will think about this one.

Peace

In the first play, I think the receiver can still be considered defenseless but barely. The hit was to his head with the defender's shoulder so it meets the 9-1-3 definition of targeting.

I like that the talking head contidicts himself on the Michigan call. "Obviously he is launching into him but hitting him in the chest with his shoulder pads".

You don't have to hear what you refuse to listen, or pay attention, to, and then you don't have to respond to what you never heard,

There were 2 at the end of the BYU-Utah Game. Probably in the last 10 minutes or so of the 4th quarter.

Both in the third quarter and both available at my link above. :D

Here they are with the different angles and commentary.

1st one:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ACbxf13dL4U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

2nd one (and more angles):

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XAhp5FrNFXw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

ETA: (BYU-Utah)

I don't have a foul in Play 1.

In Play 2, the player lines up and targets the opponent's head, and makes forcible contact.

PS: Mike Pereria needs to stick to NFL commentary.

I happen to agree with Mike on this completely. They have made this rule so black and white that any helmet contact is a foul and the penalty is too severe for situations that are not as egregious.

Peace

Talked to the Referee on the Michigan game about the call and part of his reasoning. He said that the angle from the sideline, looking into the play sold him on the call. The way the Michigan player's helmet moved up was a sign he got hit in the head. Based on how many conversations with him, his logic made total sense to me when I spoke to him. I was focused too much on the fact it was slight.

He also made a point which really brought home the point. "Why do they have the rule in the first place? To get this out of the game." So the fact that he hit him at all in the head is the reason this rule is in place. Players have to adjust so this is not done as often.

Peace

Both the Michigan and Tenn hits are targeting.