Targeting
 

I know the rule but do not have my book just now. So this is what I need help with.

There are some in our association that believes that a stiff arm to the head by the running back should be a "Targeting Foul" Part of me can say that it meets the intent of the rule but I would have a hard time calling it. I know in the past that after a new rule is published that sometimes they come out with a interpatation of the rule and post it on the NFHS page, I can not find anything like that, Has anyone else seen anything like that? Has any other group had that come up?

Very simply put, a stiff arm by a runner is not targeting any more than it's fighting. The runner extends his his stiff arm and the defender runs into his open palm. It's nothing.

We have an interpretation up here in Canada.

If the arm is extended and it's used to ward off an opponent, it's not a foul, even if that contact is to the head/helmet. If the extended arm is used in a swinging method, then it is a foul.

If the arm is extended and in that process (and before it is fully extended), it hits the helmet of the opponent, then it a foul for hands to the face, which is a UR foul.

Until a defender gets his neck snapped by the forceful "stiff arm" to the helmet...this will not be specifically addressed.

Is the ball carrier initiating contact above the shoulders? Yes. Does it meet the definition of targeting? Yes. Since NFHS did not connect targeting and defenseless player, as in NCAA, then yes, by the book you can call it targeting. Does anyone want it called targeting? I don't think so.

My opinion the stiff arm to the face mask needs to leave the game. Just my opinion.

With all the other "safety" rules they've put into the game I agree. I honestly can't believe this hasn't been addressed.

Unless the runner is delivering a blow, its nothing.

A defender trying to tackle a runner is hardly defenseless. A runner can be held, tackled, blocked, even tripped. Taking away the ability to defend himself by warding off an opponent, too much. As long as he doesn't strike, I see no serious injury risk.

Ahhh, if only the fans/coaches watched more football on Friday than on Sunday, they'd get this. More than once I had a coach in my ear about not calling tripping on the runner. And in one game a parent nearly came on the field screaming that he'd "sue my a$$ off" if his kid got hurt by an "illegal tackle."

I'm sure they did watch plenty of football on Fri., they're just behind the times.

Funny, we've heard that this year too. Our interpretation, after conferring with NCAA guys too, is that the runner would have to deliver a blow with the arm. "Stiff" means it is just that, not moving any faster than the body.

Like a flag would prevent his kid from being injured.

People can be so stupid. :o

I like that North Dakota! 👍