Targeting Rule: NFHS, NCAA, NFL, and CFL.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I saw a play in the Green Bay-Minnesota game tonight that as a non-football official I do not understand.

B24 turns the corner on a sweep to the left and turns up field. B24 is running upright when W29 lowers his shoulder in order to tackle B24 by legally hitting B24 with his shoulder in the middle of B24's chest below B24's shoulders. Just before contact B24 lowers his head and make helmet to helmet contact with W29 with the crown of his helmet. W29 went down and eventually had to be helped to his feet and off the field.

From all of the NFHS, NCAA, NFL, and CFL games that I have watched this season, almost 100% of the time, if the Defensive Player had done this had this there would have been a penalty against the Defensive Player.

Question: Can the Offensive Player be flagged for doing the same thing?

Thanks for your answers in advance.

MTD, Sr.

[HLin NC]

Short answer- yes

Long answer- The runner historically tends to get more leeway when lowering his helmet to finish the play.

[JRutledge]

For the record, there is no targeting rule in the NFL. I cannot speak for the CFL at all, but only NCAA and NF have a targeting rule. And the runner is not considered a defenseless player, neither is a defender trying to make a tackle, which is one major component of the targeting rule. Also targeting has nothing to do with helmet to helmet contact either. Now the NFL has some rules with helmet contact, but that is not based on any helmet contact. There is a lot of misconceptions in all the rules at those levels.

Peace

[SC Official]

In NFHS targeting doesn’t require a defenseless player. But it does require “taking aim” and making contact above the shoulders. The runner generally isn’t concerned with “taking aim” at a defender.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

In NFHS targeting doesn’t require a defenseless player. But it does require “taking aim” and making contact above the shoulders. The runner generally isn’t concerned with “taking aim” at a defender.

It is not required in either NF or NCAA, but it is a factor. More responsibility is on the person hitting a defenseless player. A runner is not a defenseless player in either and if there is helmet contact for lowering their shoulder to gain yardage, it can be considered not a foul or incidental in nature. In NCAA you can have targeting without any helmet area contact if you use the crown of your head.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Thanks for all of the replies. It seems that an Offensive Player can get away with using his helmet while the Defensive Player cannot.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Thanks for all of the replies. It seems that an Offensive Player can get away with using his helmet while the Defensive Player cannot.

MTD, Sr.

It is not an issue of getting away with it, but runners are allowed to lower their head to gain yardage. Just because there is contact with helmets is not a foul at any level automatically. Runners are considered to be protecting themselves differently than players trying to hit them. Yes, they get more of the benefit of the doubt, but most of the time a runner is not using their head the same way when they have defenders or blockers trying to hit an opponent. Without actually seeing the play, it is hard to know what it looked like honestly.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Thanks for all of the replies. It seems that an Offensive Player can get away with using his helmet while the Defensive Player cannot.

MTD, Sr.

For the record: NFHS 2-20-2: "TARGETING is an act by [B][I][U] any player[U][U][B][I] who takes aim and initiates contact against an opponent above the shoulders or below withe crown (top portion) of his helmet."

[Robert Goodman]

If the runner isn't projecting the helmet to gain an advantage, but only for protection, I'd ask whether, if the game were played without helmets (as for instance in American Sevens), the runner would act the same way with his head. Or even consider, if his helmet came off, but play couldn't stop in time to prevent a collision, would the runner adopt the same posture to protect himself?

I'm not trying to be flip, this is a serious question, and it may involve a tradeoff between possible head and neck injury. If I had to choose, knowing what I do, I'd risk my head before my neck, because the same blow that would result in a temporary KO if delivered to the chin would have a greater likelihood of a permanent neck injury if delivered to the crown or back of the head.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Thanks for all of the replies. It seems that an Offensive Player can get away with using his helmet while the Defensive Player cannot

MTD, Sr.

Butt Blocking (NFHS 2-20-1a) and Spearing (NFHS 2-20-1b) along with Targeting (NFHS 2-20-2) each specify "an act by ANY player (which includes both Offensive and Defensive players)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I saw a play in the Green Bay-Minnesota game tonight that as a non-football official I do not understand.

B24 turns the corner on a sweep to the left and turns up field. B24 is running upright when W29 lowers his shoulder in order to tackle B24 by legally hitting B24 with his shoulder in the middle of B24's chest below B24's shoulders. Just before contact B24 lowers his head and make helmet to helmet contact with W29 with the crown of his helmet. W29 went down and eventually had to be helped to his feet and off the field.

From all of the NFHS, NCAA, NFL, and CFL games that I have watched this season, almost 100% of the time, if the Defensive Player had done this had this there would have been a penalty against the Defensive Player.

Question: Can the Offensive Player be flagged for doing the same thing?

Thanks for your answers in advance.

MTD, Sr.

I can't speak to the NFHS, CFL or NFL rule, but I recall the news releases about the changes to the targeting rule a couple years ago for NCAA football. They made it clear that a runner lower his head to initiate contact with a defender was supposed to be called. In the time since this change was made I have seen ZERO calls for targeting against an offensive player, but a lot of terrible calls against defensive players for targeting.

The following is from the NCAA Rulebook regarding targeting.

"Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier..
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession
FR-88 RulE 9 / ConduCt oF PlayERs and othERs subJECt to RulEs
• A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst."


I would argue that the indicator needed for targeting is what is changed to red above.

Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

This is a rule approved indicator of targeting and to often, is allowed by officials. I think there is a big problem with this rule's enforcement.

I will add that I did see two correct uses of the targeting rules over the past weekend.

First, In the Michigan-OSU game, I think the replay official absolutely should have stopped play and reviewed the hit on Gentry for targeting, which I believe they did as he was being helped off the field. I think it was absolutely the correct call to not penalize the defender for targeting (And this is coming from a Michigan fan).

The second was in the LSU-A&M game where targeting was called during the OT and was upheld.

I do have a problem with the ejection and suspension part of the rule however. I think there needs to be two classifications of targeting. One in which targeting is called by the player is not disqualified from the game and a second in which the contact is ruled flagrant and the player is disqualified from the game. I would add that if a player is disqualified for targeting as a flagrant act, they should be suspended from the next full game, not sometimes a half depending on when the foul occurs.