From the SEC site:
www.secsports.com
Section 1. Personal Fouls
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)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Both forms of targeting require two things:
1. "Targeting" AND
2. [Article 3] Using the crown of the helmet (on any body part), OR [Art. 4] making forcible contact with the head/neck
First, Taaffe did not use the crown of his helmet-he used his facemask, so he did not violate Article 3.
Second, Taaffe DID make contact with head, so he could have violated Article 4 if he also was "targeting" To be a foul, the tackle must also meet the "definition of "targeting." Under Note 1, targeting requires intent to "go beyond" contact required to make a legal tackle.
When I saw the replay, it looked liked targeting but the facemask to facemask contact was totally a "clean" football play - he had to make that contact to make a good tackle and he did not show any intent to make contact beyond that necessary to make the play. The only targeting "indicator" Taaffe violated was arguable "leading with helmet, but even that is questionable because his helmet and chest made contact at the same time. While this is a subjective call, I think we can all agree his tackle was "textbook" of what we learned in middle school - head up and through the opponent. It certainly was not reasonable to expect him to move his head out of the way to finish the play. Although I expected the PF to be called, I think the official made the right call that this was a good tackle with no intent to "target."
www.secsports.com
What is Targeting? - Southeastern Conference
www.secsports.com
Section 1. Personal Fouls
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)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
- 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
- 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
- Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Both forms of targeting require two things:
1. "Targeting" AND
2. [Article 3] Using the crown of the helmet (on any body part), OR [Art. 4] making forcible contact with the head/neck
First, Taaffe did not use the crown of his helmet-he used his facemask, so he did not violate Article 3.
Second, Taaffe DID make contact with head, so he could have violated Article 4 if he also was "targeting" To be a foul, the tackle must also meet the "definition of "targeting." Under Note 1, targeting requires intent to "go beyond" contact required to make a legal tackle.
When I saw the replay, it looked liked targeting but the facemask to facemask contact was totally a "clean" football play - he had to make that contact to make a good tackle and he did not show any intent to make contact beyond that necessary to make the play. The only targeting "indicator" Taaffe violated was arguable "leading with helmet, but even that is questionable because his helmet and chest made contact at the same time. While this is a subjective call, I think we can all agree his tackle was "textbook" of what we learned in middle school - head up and through the opponent. It certainly was not reasonable to expect him to move his head out of the way to finish the play. Although I expected the PF to be called, I think the official made the right call that this was a good tackle with no intent to "target."
What is Targeting? - Southeastern Conference
www.secsports.com
