All that is well and good but unfortunately for us as officials, our observers/trainers/evaluators are almost always in the stands or press box so that is the view you get. The review committee on which I serve has no other options but to review film. We are too small a group to not be calling on Friday night and we have one retired ACC official working as our observer.

Bringing us back around to topic-the dive by the defender into the runner, would that be a possible example of NF "targeting"?

But when you evaluate tape (or when I have had games evaluated), evaluators usually do not make conclusions unless they have evidence. And then when you do not have definitive evidence, you default to the position of the official. Now you can ask the official what they saw and show then what they might have missed, but usually judgment is hard to conclude with angles like this. Yes, it could have been targeting, but I see nothing conclusive. I see an official standing there that likely saw the contact and did not draw anything from it. He could be wrong and you can always talk about why he did not see it one way or another, but I cannot come on this site and say he was totally in the wrong or missed something without some input. Talking to the officials (what evaluators often do) you see if they remember the play and see their judgment.

Peace

And if it was targeting, would it not have been unnecessary roughness under the previous rules?

Once again, only if that same field official (who obviously didn't judge the contact to be the result of targeting) believed the contact to be "unnecessary", avoidable and/or excessive.