The targeting rule in college football is as follows ...
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)
It defines "targeting" as ...
“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.
It further goes on to say "indicators" of targeting include ...
1. 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
2. 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
3. Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
4. Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Everything else in the rulebook regarding "targeting" relates to hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck. That did not occur in this instance, so those portions of the rulebook are irrelevant to this particular play.
Okay, so we break it down. What must happen for a hit to violate this rule?
a) The player must target;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the crown of the helmet; and
d) There must be at least one of the indicators
Since they supply the definition of targeting, we can re-write (a) to say, "The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle."
The term "crown" of the helmet is not defined anywhere else in the rulebook, other than one single place where it is described as the "top" of the helmet (Page FI-59). I found this image on Google and it shows what I always understood the crown of the helmet to mean ...
And, if you watch these two slowed down clips (below), I think we can all agree that Indicators 1 through 3 do not even come close to applying (they all require contact to the head or neck), so we can re-write (d) to say "The player must have lowered his head before attacking."
So for our discussion, the elements of the rule are:
a) The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle.;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the top of the helmet; and
d) The player must have lowered his head before attacking.
I'd argue that Purdue's player didn't even come close to violating the rule, but the only element that isn't even debatable is (b); there was clearly forcible contact.
Did the player lower his head before attacking? I don't see it. His head is up the entire time. Does it
slightly dip the last 6 inches before contact? Maybe.
Was the contact made with the top of the helmet? Looks to me like the contact is made with the top of the facemask and and/or the section between the facemask and the right earhole. The contact can't be made with the crown of the helmet because the railroad tracks that run down the center of the helmet are visible at the point the contact is made.
And finally, did the player intend to hit the player with the crown of his helmet ("take aim ... for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle") - an action that he knows will result in being thrown out of the game? Give me a break. Nobody believes this guy was intending to do something that would get him thrown out of the game. Sorry, the rule requires intent. It's always forgotten by the officials and the broadcasters, but I just quoted you the rule - if the player's actions were not taken with the
purpose of violating the rule ("purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle"), then it's not a penalty. It's not enough to hit a player below the head and neck (remember, the rule is different if the contact is not with the ball carrier's head and neck) with the crown of your helmet ... the defensive player must
intend to hit the ball carrier with the crown of his helmet.
This was not targeting. The officials made a BS call and it changed the dynamic of the game. I still think we would have won, but we definitely wouldn't have been able to run all over them using the Jabu-special for an entire quarter.
