I realize we're winning and all, but how is that hit in the 2nd quarter not targeting? Carter was falling (i.e. defenseless) and #32 led with the crown of his helmet, no attempt to have is head up. Maybe if Carter had been hurt they would have called it, but man that seemed textbook to me.
Maryland's Non-targeting on Carter
- Thread starter BigBL87
- Start date
Because the player that targeted got crushed probably... not saying it was OK but it probably altered their decision a little
Players lead with their head down all the time. If it would have been helmet to helmetn then I am guessing targeting would have been called. He is lucky he didnt break his neck though with his head bent down like that.
I understand that's what usually gets the call, but it doesn't need to be by the rule as far as I know.
The guy tried to go low and Carter bent over and lowered his head. Not targeting in my view. We've gotten away with more than one hold so I wouldn't complain too much about the officiating. We've gotten at least our fair share of calls today.
Fair. I'm not neccesarily suggesting we have been not getting calls overall, because outside of the hits on Reilly and Carter I haven't had much to complain about. I just look back at some of the BS targeting calls Gerry has gotten, and look at those two and really wonder what targeting actually is. By the book, both of those hits are targeting, in reading what the NCAA defines it as.
I really don't think he was trying to lead with helmet at all. It looked bad but I wouldn't have called it targeting either.
How about the throw downs when players were out of bound?
First of all, no holding was called on either team, I don't consider that "getting away" with holding as much as the refs just decided not to call it. I highly doubt Maryland didn't have any instances of "getting away" with holding either. I didn't get to watch the game live, but I did go back and watch some of it, and I didn't see any penalty where I would consider us "getting a call" as all seemed legit, both DPI penalties on the final scoring drive of the first half seemed legit, despite what the commentator was saying.
As for the targeting penalty, this has been discussed more times than I can count, but since it seems to be forgotten, this is what the actual targeting rule states.
This is the only part of the rule that would really matter when discussing the hit against Carter, as the other part of the targeting rule discusses hits against a "defenseless player" which Carter would not qualify as on this play. Watch the replay, and it's pretty clear the hit was made with the crown of his helmet. You can see it in the image below:
That is most definitely the crown of the helmet, which is defined as any part of the helmet above the facemask. The targeting foul requires at least one indicator of targeting which is shown in the note here:
The hit would qualify for the last two points on that note. He lead with his helmet and forcible contact was made to the head or neck area. And he lowered his head before attacking. Everything about that hit matches up with aspects of the targeting rule, by the way the rule is written, it should have been targeting.
Having said all that, do I think the Maryland player was making any sort of attempt to injure Cethan Carter by making that hit? No, it doesn't look like any malice was intended with the hit. However, it's been stated numerous times that part of the reason for instituting the targeting rule is to try and get players to stop lowering their heads before they make hits. I don't think anything was intended by the hit, but the way the rule is written, I don't see how it's not targeting. I think if the two teams had been reversed, the outcome of that review would have probably been different (based on what I've seen in the past) and some of the very same people arguing that it shouldn't have been called, would be arguing that calling it was correct.