Former Basketball Official With CFB Question

[Rufus]

During the UGA/OSU tilt last night there was a late targeting call in the back of the end zone that was overturned on review. What happened was:

WR for OSU is moving in the back of the endzone to free himself from coverage and, in the process, steps out of bounds with one foot. He re-establishes himself in the endzone with both feet and the ball is thrown to him. He receives it and is immediately levelled by a UGA defender, the violence of the contact jarring the ball loose. Upon review the targeting call was reversed.

My questions are:

• Because the receiver stepped out of bounds, re-established inbounds, then was first to touch the ball would the touchdown have counted if the defender hadn't jarred it loose?
• If the targeting call hadn't been reversed would it still have stood since the receiver was first to touch after having been out of bounds (think that's called illegal touching)? Which takes precedence or is it adjudicated in the order they occurred?

TIA

[JRutledge]

Unless I see another angle (I saw one ESPN put out from the endzone), that was not targeting. It was a hard hit that is not illegal. And if people tell you that he is defenseless, that just means he has to be hit legally. And if you target them you have less wiggle room to get out of it. A runner for example cannot easily be targeted because they are considered to be in a more protected position.

Targeting calls are just that, targeting calls. I cannot imagine anything changing that other than whether the foul took place as a live ball or dead ball.

Peace