Upon Further Review: Targeting

I received a few messages surrounding Gaines' targeting call yesterday, so I thought I'd share some quick thoughts with everyone. I'm continuing to keep detailed information on penalties and official performance this year, which I'll share intermittently via the Forum.

The targeting foul called against Houshun Gaines was the correct call, based on the current NCAA rule book and interpretation. He absolutely decleated Boston College's #38, Richard Wilson. The call was immediate, which we should expect. With the current views on safety and the emphasis to officials to protect players, this call is one we will continue to see getting made. One of the NCAA changes for 2016 includes the ability to initiate a penalty for targeting from the booth, even if not called on the field. Prior to this season, the booth could only review a targeting call to see if the guilty party was guilty of targeting. I'm not aware of this part of the rule being used yet, and I can only imagine the ensuing insanity if/when it is applied.

Let's take a look at the exact language of NCAA Rule 9-1-4:

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).

Broadcast media often get the rule wrong on TV. Yesterday, they had more trouble covering Bucky Hodges than the BC secondary. So don't expect them to be accurate in quoting the rule book or explaining a call – even if the producer is trying to do so in their ear. The last part of the rule is really, really important: "When in question, it is a foul." This one statement explains why the majority of targeting penalties are upheld, even when most everyone thinks it will get flipped.

The rule refers to Note 2, which defines defenseless player. In this case, there's not much doubt that #38 meets that test. It's a blind-side block. So let's take a closer look at Note 1, referred to as "indicators of targeting".

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

Houshun Gaines' first point of contact was helmet-to-helmet. He didn't lower his head, and it wasn't with the crown of the helmet. Gaines definitely transferred most of the hit with his shoulder at or below the shoulder pad level, but that was not the initial contact. The language of the rule is not limited to the four indicators; there's an element of this left open-ended. The key phrases that matter as indicators are "forcible contact" and "initiating". Approved rules interpretation 10 (X) addresses the reverse of this situation, almost verbatim, stating that forcible contact from the blind side is a legal block on a punt return as long as there is no forcible contact to the head/neck area.

As the loop shows, forcible contact is being made to the BC player's head, and that contact is the initial contact between the players. Not only does the BC player's head move differently in relation to his chest and shoulders, Gaine's own head reacts to the contact. All this happens in the initial few tenths-of-a-second of contact. That's the kind of thing you have to look at sometimes. One might argue that Gaines's intent to make a legal block overrides the targeting indicator, but the degree of force and the location of initial contact are how the officials will ascertain intent.

The call was unpopular, for sure. The targeting rule, and the way it is implemented, make it even more variable than "what is a catch?". As Coach Fuente alluded to post-game, if Gaines goes too low then it's an illegal cut block, and Gaines appeared to be trying for a legal block. That's footballing some days. At least against BC, the discussion of the penalty is more of a footnote.

Thanks to HokieTapes for posting the BC film quickly.