The launching qualifier is absolutely unnecessary and an incredibly lazy way to automatically claim targeting. Tonight provided 2 perfect examples.

Discuss. Or not.

Launching is an INDICATOR but not a required one. There must be an INDICATOR in targeting. Others include (but are not limited to) a crouch, leading with the head (or neck, shoulder, etc.), and lowering the head.

Muy said:

---

The launching qualifier is absolutely unnecessary and an incredibly lazy way to automatically claim targeting. Tonight provided 2 perfect examples.

Discuss. Or not.

---

Eliminate this infraction altogether. Football is a violent contact sport and, by its nature, includes the possibility of injury.

A&M did not get a targeting call because espn wants the name brand match up in the playoffs. It will be fox vs espn in the final.

The networks were not about to let the Aggies muck this up.

Plus the Aggies fold like a cheap suit when Marcel gets flustered due to the offense Klein ran while completely checked out.

When the refs and the rules guys with the announcers could not agree on that first 'targeting' call is when we should have all learned just how ridiculous that rule is.

False start... clear as mud
Targeting... you put the outcome in the hands of someone other than the players

fulshearAg96 said:

---

When the refs and the rules guys with the announcers could not agree on that first 'targeting' call is when we should have all learned just how ridiculous that rule is.

False start... clear as mud
Targeting... you put the outcome in the hands of someone other than the players

---

Mud is not very clear

I give up on trying to figure it out….

Gyles Marrett said:

---

And there's 2 different parts of the targetting rule that even the tv people seem to not know sometimes. If the player is defenseless all that is necessary for targeting is "forceful contact to the head or neck area"….launch isn't necessary. Helmet to helmet isn't even necessary. Just forceful contact to the head or neck area. The rule needs to go away if the consistency is going to remain this big of a joke.

---

100% accurate description of the rule. Almost always described wrong or incompletely by "rules experts" on TV, and inconsistently applied so often as to make it meaningless.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

If the player is defenseless all that is necessary for targeting is "forceful contact to the head or neck area"….launch isn't necessary. Helmet to helmet isn't even necessary. Just forceful contact to the head or neck area. .

---

Forcible. And there still must be an indicator.

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

Don't even bring up holding. That last tackle was literally tackling Miami's defensive end all night.

That rule must be 10,000 words long. Whenever it is called or not called, there are pages and pages of qualifiers and conditions and if/thens that come out in the debate. There's no way that rule can be applied equally and uniformly. It's a mess of a rule that unfortunately can change an entire game.

The rule is probably less than 300 words including notes.

The pages and pages of qualifiers are because no one understands the rule or takes time to read it. The announcers certainly don't help on that.


But I do agree it's impossible to uniformly enforce due to subjectivity. You'd need 1 person over all football waiting in a tv room reviewing.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

And there's 2 different parts of the targetting rule that even the tv people seem to not know sometimes. If the player is defenseless all that is necessary for targeting is "forceful contact to the head or neck area"….launch isn't necessary. Helmet to helmet isn't even necessary. Just forceful contact to the head or neck area. The rule needs to go away if the consistency is going to remain this big of a joke.

---

It won't go away. But it could be explained better to the talking heads and probably the refs…

fulshearAg96 said:

---

When the refs and the rules guys with the announcers could not agree on that first 'targeting' call is when we should have all learned just how ridiculous that rule is.

---

Bingo! Field guy called targeting, Booth guy called targeting. Replay overruled. Get rid of the damn rule already!

Targeting exists to prevent lawsuits first, and to give yet another arbitrary way for referees to impact games.

It's never been clear or consistent. It's never stopped players from doing it. The same play routinely happens in separate games and is called different ways.

We need to get rid of it and make players just sign waivers. Want to play a game for a living? Part of the job.

Mega Lops said:

---

A&M did not get a targeting call because espn wants the name brand match up in the playoffs. It will be fox vs espn in the final.

The networks were not about to let the Aggies muck this up.

Plus the Aggies fold like a cheap suit when Marcel gets flustered due to the offense Klein ran while completely checked out.

---

Hilarious take given the fact that Texas A&M generates far better tv ratings than Miami, Indiana, and Oregon.

They should have regional panels made up of 3 to 5 former high level defensive players, minimum D1 college, preferably NFL….let em review and vote.

0 means no foul of any kind.
Split but no majority, means 5 yds, no ejection
Split with majority, 10 yds, no ejection
Unanimous means 15 yds, and ejection

What all the rules can't capture is whether the D player is coming in with malicious intentions, or if the collision just had incidental helmet to helmet contact.
And it's possible to have strong head contact without it being with malicious intent.
Launching, crown of head, placed with bad intentions….youll see it.
But guys playing hard, playing fast, maybe even turning their head to try and lessen the headshot impact….thats different, and you can see that too.
And the best judges/jury are those who have been in those same shoes, and can directly relate to what's going on .

Targeting has no real definition.

It's whatever the officials think it is.

It can be used to give or take away advantages to a team.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

If the player is defenseless all that is necessary for targeting is "forceful contact to the head or neck area"….launch isn't necessary. Helmet to helmet isn't even necessary. Just forceful contact to the head or neck area. .

---

Forcible. And there still must be an indicator.

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

---

Literally what I said. If you make forceable contact to the head of neck area there ia a 100% chance you lead with either the helmet, shoulder, the forearm, the fist, hand, or elbow.....what else are they going to hit them with? Their aura? Launching, crouching, intent, etc. is meaningless by that part of the rule.

TyperWoods said:

---

Targeting has no real definition.

It's whatever the officials think it is.

---

I agree....

And the biggest issue with it, IMO, when you consider the vagueness in when it's applied, is you're ejecting a player.

If you want to error on the side of caution and call it more, go for it. But quit ejecting players when nobody really knows what is or isn't targeting. Asinine.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Launching is an INDICATOR but not a required one. There must be an INDICATOR in targeting. Others include (but are not limited to) a crouch, leading with the head (or neck, shoulder, etc.), and lowering the head.

---

But evidently, knocking yourself out while doing those is not an indicator.

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Launching is an INDICATOR but not a required one. There must be an INDICATOR in targeting. Others include (but are not limited to) a crouch, leading with the head (or neck, shoulder, etc.), and lowering the head.

---

But evidently, knocking yourself out while doing those is not an indicator.

---

Yeah I'd say both players having to be taken to injury tents to check for concussions should be a dead giveaway that both somehow magically were hit in the head....

but you know player safety and all....

frito said:

---

fulshearAg96 said:

---

When the refs and the rules guys with the announcers could not agree on that first 'targeting' call is when we should have all learned just how ridiculous that rule is.

False start... clear as mud
Targeting... you put the outcome in the hands of someone other than the players

---

Mud is not very clear

---

good catch! ment to say false start easy to see which clearly I didnt

BMX Bandit said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

If the player is defenseless all that is necessary for targeting is "forceful contact to the head or neck area"….launch isn't necessary. Helmet to helmet isn't even necessary. Just forceful contact to the head or neck area. .

---

Forcible. And there still must be an indicator.

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

---

Thanks for posting the rule. It still makes me angry thinking about how Donovan Wilson got called when he was literally attempting to jump out of the way of contact once. I think the refs were "targeting" Wilson because he had a reputation (earned or not).

Also angry about how the hit on Owens vs Miami wasn't even reviewed. Miami player was at approx 45 degree angle (launching) when he hit Owens who was defenseless. One of the camera angles was misleading - the other was clear that it was a launch.

This rule is so inconsistently applied.