Asking an honest question about targeting

[BruisedOrange]

This was a reviewed call (2nd half kickoff) so the reviewing referees, after multiple looks at slow-mo and stop action replay, were satisfied that the crown of the blocker's helmet was not used against the coverage player's head or neck. What am I missing about the rule?

Was the blocking player not leaning forward at enough angle to incur targeting?
Did the blocking player not actually launch, leaving his feet, to incur targeting?
Did the blocking player merely strike a glancing blow?

I'm not being sarcastic, sardonic, or facetious.
In the situation illustrated above, what would it have taken to qualify as a targeting call? (Aside from the obvious BVS response of "be wearing a different uniform.")

 

[Visiting Dawg]

View attachment 686715
This was a reviewed call (2nd half kickoff) so the reviewing referees, after multiple looks at slow-mo and stop action replay, were satisfied that the crown of the blocker's helmet was not used against the coverage player's head or neck. What am I missing about the rule?

Was the blocking player not leaning forward at enough angle to incur targeting?
Did the blocking player not actually launch, leaving his feet, to incur targeting?
Did the blocking player merely strike a glancing blow?

I'm not being sarcastic, sardonic, or facetious.
In the situation illustrated above, what would it have taken to qualify as a targeting call? (Aside from the obvious BVS response of "be wearing a different uniform.")

Looks like it in the still photo. I did not get a great look at it last night due to being at the inlaws house watching on a 1950s version of a TV so I'd want to see a replay and see if there was a launch. My guess is it's just another example of inconsistent officiating in the SEC. Replay is worthless if you don't get it right and launching with the crown should get you rung up even if you don't make contact with the head/neck area.

 

[OrangeVolMan]

I thought it was targeting by definition of the rule. I was shocked they didn’t call that. To me that is the type of play they are trying to take out of the game.

 

[VOLywood]

My only thought was that they never reviewed that hit, only the one involving the other Vols player that was blind side blocked.

It's clearly targeting.

 

[Firebirdparts]

I guess that is not a defenseless player, and that only the crown of the helmet rule would apply. The middle picture looks like it would apply but the third picture makes it appear that it wasn't very "forcible". In my very limited understanding, both of those conditions would make it targeting.

If it's a defenseless player then the using your helmet requirement goes away. Sounds like you all know that already, though.

 

[EZE]

It looked like obvious targeting to me from the west stands.

 

[bloodtype_orange]

The shot on Brazzell across the middle was clear targeting. No flag or review and it was center of attention

 

[VFL 89]

Targeting IMHO. Refs missed several calls last night but they also got several correct too. Oh well, watcha gonna do?

 

[1Big_Orange_Fan]

I was fine with the no call. We got the 15 yard penalty and there was no harm. I think they call it too much and should to call the truly obvious ones

 

[Carp]

The shot on Brazzell across the middle was clear targeting. No flag or review and it was center of attention

At the 2.05 mark. Clear targeting. Forcible contact in the head or neck area to a defenseless receiver. I couldn't believe it wasn't called.

I don't know if Tennessee playing so fast didn't allow for enough time for the replay booth to stop play to review it, but it was a clear missed call on the field and that defender should have been ejected.