Targeting - Helmet to Helmet

[JRutledge]

First of all the NCAA, unlike the NF uses video extensively to show what should be addressed and not addressed. So to suggest the wording is "open-ended" without looking at video from the NCAA is kind of silly honestly. And unless you are an official that subscribes to their site, you might not see their bulletins either as to what is suggested to be illegal. This is frankly where a person that does not officiate lose perspective. The only thing the NCAA has made illegal are hits that are high and to the head and players that are not involved in the play anymore. This was the ball carrier who by rule is considered a player that can defend themselves. You can keep missing that fact, but the NCAA rules are much more clear on this issue as opposed to even the NF Rules and Interpretations. You cannot just make a claim and not show and example that supports your point of view. There is even a casebook in the NCAA.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all the NCAA, unlike the NF uses video extensively to show what should be addressed and not addressed. So to suggest the wording is "open-ended" without looking at video from the NCAA is kind of silly honestly.

This is old wording in NCAA's rules, from long before there was use of video -- probably before video even existed! They could've deleted if it they wanted to.

BTW, NFL's provision states, "There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but not be limited to...." So they too say it's open ended, i.e. that just because something's not listed as a form of unnecessary roughness doesn't mean it isn't.