Here's the copied text of Targetting Rule

[cramx3]

Watching live I did not think it was targeting, but on replay I wasn't 100% sure. It seemed close enough that they would call it so I wasn't too annoyed by the actual call, but what does piss me off is the ejection part. I don't understand how such a close and unintentional play can result in an ejection. It was quite clear the play was not dirty. I believe even the commentators thought that intent should play a role. I mean, we may never know a true player's intent but you can read the body language and nothing about that play seemed dirty. If anything, call a personal foul and move on. Giving the refs the ability to eject a player like that is bad for the game IMO.

 

[Media Fan]

ARTICLE 5

A. The replay official shall review all targeting fouls, Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. For a player to be disqualified and the Targeting foul to be enforced, all elements of a Targeting foul must be confirmed by the Instant Replay Official. There is no option for stands as a part of a Targeting review. If any element of Targeting cannot be confirmed, then the Replay Official shall overturn the targeting foul.

Targeting elements include:

1. Rule 9-1-3:

• (a) A player takes aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.
• (b) An indicator of targeting is present.

2. Rule 9-1-4:

• (a) A defenseless opponent (Rule 2-27-14).
• (b) A player takes aim at a defenseless opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area.
• (c) An indicator of targeting is present.

B. The replay official may create a targeting foul from the booth when the targeting action is clear and obvious and the foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge.
-------------------------------------------


So it's quite clear that the only "element" that can be called in regards to Brooks tackle is Rule 9-1-3 as Wisconsin runner is not entitled to the additional "elements" of 9-1-4, a "Defenseless Opponent" as defined by Rule 2-27-14.

Brooks does not initiate or target contact with the crown of his helmet as defined by Rule 9-1-3. He is Targetting contact with the center of Wisconsin runner's chest until the WISCONSIN RUNNER decides to drop his level & head and drive into Brooks - even still, Brooks' first contact is into Wisconsin runner's side and shoulder with his own shoulder and the front of his helmet (i.e., facemask). It isn't until after first contact that Brooks' head rides up and over Wisconsin runner's shoulder and their heads contact each other (basically the front of Brooks' helmet to the right-front of Mertz's helmet) - this is incidental contact of a tackle collision by rule as the first contact proves that Brooks is not Targetting anything with the crown of his helmet.

In addition, the final paragraph of rule clearly states, "Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge.".

He led with his head. That’s enough for me. He should have been thrown out.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

He led with his head. That’s enough for me. He should have been thrown out.

He didn't lead with his head dipshit - first contact was with his arms and upper left side, especially his shoulder.

 

[MacNit07]

You're absolutely wrong - the Rule (9-1-3 in this case, not the more general 9-1-4 which forbids any contact on a protected "Defenseless Player" as defined by 2-27-14) absolutely states that the defender must "Take Aim" with the crown of his helmet. No such thing happened here and Brooks factually attempted, targeted and DID make first contact with his own hands and shoulder into the right flank and shoulder of the Wisconsin runner (furthermore, the contact would have been even LOWER on the Wisconsin runner except that the offensive runner CHOOSE to lower both his head & level bring Brooks hit higher.). And the rule absolutely says the contact must be intentional, not incidental resulting from the offensive player's choices and actions - it specifically says, "...for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.". Brooks was not "targeting" and lining up first contact with the crown of his helmet - the rule says that the player needs to "take aim" with the crown of their helmet for the element to be met. Brooks doesn't "take aim" with the crown of his helmet as the primary point of contact as the video very clearly demonstrates. You're utterly full of shit that the rule says nothing about intent and aiming of CROWN OF HELMET as primary point of contact (btw, the "crown" is defined as the area of helmet "above the top of the facemask") - no f'ing way was Brooks "aiming" this portion of his helmet as the primary point of contact, let alone intentionally doing such a thing. You're completely full of shit in 100% of your assertions.

Does not matter the rule, nor the text, nor the interpretation. It is this simple:

If there is even a remote way the Big10 can screw PSU, it will happen. Period.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Watching live I did not think it was targeting, but on replay I wasn't 100% sure. It seemed close enough that they would call it so I wasn't too annoyed by the actual call, but what does piss me off is the ejection part. I don't understand how such a close and unintentional play can result in an ejection. It was quite clear the play was not dirty. I believe even the commentators thought that intent should play a role. I mean, we may never know a true player's intent but you can read the body language and nothing about that play seemed dirty. If anything, call a personal foul and move on. Giving the refs the ability to eject a player like that is bad for the game IMO.

"Intention" absolutely is part of the Rule Brooks was subject to, Rule 9-3-1.... it is not part of the far broader Rule protecting "Defenseless Players", Rule 9-1-4, which does not require intention and penalizes any forceful contact whatsoever to the "Head, Neck and Shoulder Area" of a Defenseless Player regardless of what part of their body the defender uses. The duhO$U Player was subject to the extremely broad Rule 9-4-1, which is what makes it utterly absurd that the corrupt b1g clown Officials called nothing here even upon Official Booth Review (the only thing they called on Booth Review was that the "Defenseless" Minnesota player, who was entitled to the broad protections of Rule 9-1-4, fumbled the ball !!!).

 

[MacNit07]

Do you folks ever simply enjoy the game and not obsess about officiating?

Ever have a call go against the Fighting Acorns? One that matters? Walk a mile in our shoes, the chicanery is well-documented. Why do you think College Football has replay? Its because it got so bad that adults had to try step in. There is a ways to go yet (Big10 just claims replay did not work if the call is to go against Bucks).

 

[MacNit07]

You know why it looks like targeting? Because it is targeting. The call was correct, it's on Brooks.

The Ohio State call was targeting too. They just screwed it up.

All these “ screw ups?” Ever wonder why they all go one way?

 

[MacNit07]

So, is the osu player suspended for the 1st half? Seems like that part can be corrected.

Yeah right?!

 

[Erial_Lion]

He didn't lead with his head dipshit - first contact was with his arms and upper left side, especially his shoulder.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

View embedded media

Again, first contact is not Spearing dipshit, you don't know the rule! The rule specifies that you must aim with THE CROWN OF YOUR HELMET (and the crown of helmet is defined as portion of helmet ABOVE THE TOP OF THE FACEMASK AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PORTION OF THE FACEMASK). The pic you posted is beyond clear that Brooks is "targeting" first contact to Mertz left-side (which became "upper left-side" after Mertz crouched into the hit - Mertz crouches down and his knees go to 90 degrees as goes into contact which lowers his head level a good foot.). 100% of the first-contact being made with Brooks' helmet on Mertz is with the FRONT OF HIS HELMET - not Targetting according to rule. Rule specifies that the CROWN OF THE HELMET must be intentionally "aimed" and "targeted" for first contact... didn't happen here.). Brooks doesn't even make contact with Mertz's helmet until after he rolls up and over his left shoulder as Meetz crouches into him significantly dropping his head level. Targetting under Rule 9-1-3 has to have indications that it's "intentional" (which obviously doesn't count incidental contact after 1st impact to a different part of the body - especially when Mertz crouches at impact drastically lowering his head level (and raising the impact area of Brokks was "targeting" from mid-upper body to high upper left-side. If it's clear the tackler didn't intend the contract (i.e., it's "incidental") than Targetting is not supposed to be called under 9-1-3.

 

[Erial_Lion]

100% of the first-contact being made with Brooks' helmet on Mertz is with the FRONT OF HIS HELMET - not Targetting according to rule.

If you look at that picture and see Brooks hitting him with the “FRONT OF HIS HELMET”, then you need your eyes examined. Change the Jersey colors and we’d get 1000 word ramblings from you about how it was obviously targeting.

Brooks came in ducking with the crown of hs helmet…wasn’t the most violent hit ever, but if someone did that to our QB (or any player in that situation), I’d sure as hell want it called.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

If you look at that picture and see Brooks hitting him with the “FRONT OF HIS HELMET”, then you need your eyes examined. Change the Jersey colors and we’d get 1000 word ramblings from you about how it was obviously targeting.

Brooks came in ducking with the crown of hs helmet…wasn’t the most violent hit ever, but if someone did that to our QB (or any player in that situation), I’d sure as hell want it called.

You're so full of shit - the pic clearly shows:

- First contact is to the upper left-side of ball carrier, NOT THE BALL CARRIER'S HEAD.

- Pic clearly shows that ball carrier crouches and twists his left-side forward just prior to contact - which very clearly drops the level of his head significantly (Mertz's knees are bent to almost 90 degrees).

- Brooks is lowering his body level as he comes in - undeniable evidence that he is coming in to hit Mertz in the mid-section, not the head. The only reason any contact whatsoever occurs between their helmets is that Mertz curls up going into the hit also twisting his left-side forward - this unquestionably drops Mertz's head level significantly.

- Even with all that, the pic does not show Brooks "aiming" his contact to be with the CROWN OF HIS HELMET - you're simply full of shit. The first contact is to Mertz's upper left-side and shoulder.... and the pic clearly shows that from where the helmet begins rounding to the crown, up to the peak of the crown - 90% of that area makes NO contact with Brooks' targetted "first-contact" area (Martz's mid-upper body until Martz curls up causing his upper-body level to drop significantly and first impact to rise to the upper left-side and shoulder). It's only after the area that Brooks targets (AND Martz drops his head level significantly by curling up just prior to impact) does Brooks' head ride up over Mertz's shoulder after first impact and their is helmet contact between the players.

Based on all of that, it is quite clear that the helmet contact was secondary to first impact and the helmet-tohelmet contact was not intentional.

 

[CbusLion10]

This has been entertaining.

Rewatched it about 50 times from all available angles. Brooks did make some contact with Mertz’s shoulder pad first but he came in with a full head of steam and there was a hell of a collision between two helmets. I get why they called it. But you could call that dozens of times every game if two helmets violently clanking together is a penalty.

It’s definitely a sketchy, subjective rule and a shame Brooks got DQ’d, but hopefully he brings his arms from now on. I’ve seen too much of that horseshit from PSU defenders these past few years. You’re not trying to blow someone up for a highlight, you’re trying to get dudes to the ground and stop their progress. Notice despite the huge collision Mertz spun off and kept his balance before Brisker nudges him, and Sutherland politely helps him down.

 

[Erial_Lion]

It’s definitely a sketchy, subjective rule and a shame Brooks got DQ’d, but hopefully he brings his arms from now on. I’ve seen too much of that horseshit from PSU defenders these past few years. You’re not trying to blow someone up for a highlight, you’re trying to get dudes to the ground and stop their progress.

Or use that old coaching adage of “see what you hit”…Brooks is facing the ground as he tries to hammer him. Keep your head up and you won’t hit him with the crown of the helmet.

 

[CbusLion10]

Or use that old coaching adage of “see what you hit”…Brooks is facing the ground as he tries to hammer him. Keep your head up and you won’t hit him with the crown of the helmet.

True. The way the current rule is written, you have to make contact with your facemask first, otherwise leave yourself open to a potential targeting call.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

This has been entertaining.

Rewatched it about 50 times from all available angles. Brooks did make some contact with Mertz’s shoulder pad first but he came in with a full head of steam and there was a hell of a collision between two helmets. I get why they called it. But you could call that dozens of times every game if two helmets violently clanking together is a penalty.

It’s definitely a sketchy, subjective rule and a shame Brooks got DQ’d, but hopefully he brings his arms from now on. I’ve seen too much of that horseshit from PSU defenders these past few years. You’re not trying to blow someone up for a highlight, you’re trying to get dudes to the ground and stop their progress. Notice despite the huge collision Mertz spun off and kept his balance before Brisker nudges him, and Sutherland politely helps him down.

I really dislike the people who reference that "Mertz is their QB" (as the lame FOX Announcers did and many here have done) and blame Brooks for the violence of the collision. 100% of the responsibility for the collision lies with Mertz in reality, and under the rules. Mertz, as a QB, is entitled to give himself up via going out-of-bounds or sliding feet-first to gain protection from being hit at all. Furthermore, he made no effort whatsoever to evade Brooks, and it was Mertz, and Mertz alone, who decided it would be a direct collision in an effort to get the last 2 to 3 yards needed to reach the first down marker. Laying the blame for the violence of the collision on Brooks is complete and utter bullshit and he did not intentionally make contact with Mertz's helmet and his first contact was targeted well-below Mertz's shoulders until Mertz curled up just prior to contact with Brooks dropping his head height by a good foot.

 

[CbusLion10]

I really dislike the people who reference that "Mertz is their QB" (as the lame FOX Announcers did and many here have done) and blame Brooks for the violence of the collision. 100% of the responsibility for the collision lies with Mertz in reality, and under the rules. Mertz, as a QB, is entitled to give himself up via going out-of-bounds or sliding feet-first to gain protection from being hit at all. Furthermore, he made no effort whatsoever to evade Brooks, and it was Mertz, and Mertz alone, who decided it would be a direct collision in an effort to get the last 2 to 3 yards needed to reach the first down marker. Laying the blame for the violence of the collision on Brooks is complete and utter bullshit and he did not intentionally make contact with Mertz's helmet and his first contact was targeted well-below Mertz's shoulders until Mertz curled up just prior to contact with Brooks dropping his head height by a good foot.

Agreed that QBs shouldn’t get different protection. But they do. The rule doesn’t make accommodations based on the position you play, and gives too much leeway to the officials. He looked a little more girly running down the sidelines so we have to protect him, get the hell out of here.

The “blame” for the collision would go to both Mertz and Brooks, as they were both initiating contact. Brooks came in hot, definitely looked like he intended to blow up Mertz. Fine by me, knock him into the bleachers. Mertz dropped his head like most do when bracing for a hit. Brooks would have to account for that and keep his head up, hitting with his face mask first.

 

[wilbury]

Again, first contact is not Spearing dipshit, you don't know the rule! The rule specifies that you must aim with THE CROWN OF YOUR HELMET (and the crown of helmet is defined as portion of helmet ABOVE THE TOP OF THE FACEMASK AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PORTION OF THE FACEMASK). The pic you posted is beyond clear that Brooks is "targeting" first contact to Mertz left-side (which became "upper left-side" after Mertz crouched into the hit - Mertz crouches down and his knees go to 90 degrees as goes into contact which lowers his head level a good foot.). 100% of the first-contact being made with Brooks' helmet on Mertz is with the FRONT OF HIS HELMET - not Targetting according to rule. Rule specifies that the CROWN OF THE HELMET must be intentionally "aimed" and "targeted" for first contact... didn't happen here.). Brooks doesn't even make contact with Mertz's helmet until after he rolls up and over his left shoulder as Meetz crouches into him significantly dropping his head level. Targetting under Rule 9-1-3 has to have indications that it's "intentional" (which obviously doesn't count incidental contact after 1st impact to a different part of the body - especially when Mertz crouches at impact drastically lowering his head level (and raising the impact area of Brokks was "targeting" from mid-upper body to high upper left-side. If it's clear the tackler didn't intend the contract (i.e., it's "incidental") than Targetting is not supposed to be called under 9-1-3.

How you can look at that picture and argue what is happening isn't happening is beyond me but it's been entertaining.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

How you can look at that picture and argue what is happening isn't happening is beyond me but it's been entertaining.

If you think the pic posted is showing first contact (on Mertz's left-side and shoulder) with the "crown" of Brooks helmet, you clearly don't know the definition of the "crown of the helmet" - by the way, where did I argue that what's happening isn't happening Doodles? What's happening is that Brooks is making first contact with Mertz's left-side and shoulder.... and he isn't initiating the contact with the crown of his helmet. What is also happening is that Merz is crouching into the hit (quite clear from the angle of his knees) dropping his head-level significantly and commensurately moving Brooks' first impact up his body by the same amount.

Patently ridiculous to claim that Brooks was "Targeting" helmet-to-helmet contact as his primary point of initial contact.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Still say if you read the actual Section of the rules posted in the OP and look how the b1g clown Officials (including both the field and booth Officials) called, or didn't call, Rule 9-1-4 on the duhO$U defender's direct head-shot on a Defenseless Minny receiver and how they called Rule 9-1-3 on Brooks' hit raise question after question regarding the b1g Officials actual detailed knowledge of the rules and whether they just make it up as they go along to suit their agendas and biases.

How is it even remotely possible that the Booth Crew reviewed the duhO$U defender's intentional head shot on a Minny receiver protected by the Defenseless Player Rule (i.e., 9-1-4)??? Just beyond absurd that Targetting was not called by the Review Booth - insanely absurd.

In the PSU-Wisco game, the Booth Review doesn't come in until well after the Official signals that Wisconsin called Timeout...., but the the Officials handled the reversal of the call as if it was a Wisconsin Coach's Challenge, giving Wisconsin the Timeout they had called after play back because the play was reversed in Wisconsin's favor, when the rule specifically states that such play are not subject to "Coach's Challenge"????

Pretty clear that the big clowns don't really know the rules that well, and more than anything, make it up as the go along to suit their agendas and biases.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[Texas Lion]

Don’t duck ur head, it really is as simple as that.