Dust in the Wind: BYU vs. Kansas

[Bo Diddley]

I'm not bitter at all, but that fumble recovery for a touchdown - that's pretty much a demonstration of what is typically called targeting. You know, the kind of helmet-to-helmet hit that causes a concussion?

My recording skipped the first part of the game. When they showed a replay of that play, I assumed it was among the several penalties the Kansas head coach was bemoaning during his interview at the end of the first quarter.

The second turnover was also a missed penalty. Isaac Rex reached out for the ball with his right hand. He probably would have reached with his left, too, except his left arm was being held by the defender - starting right after the ball was put in the air.

The third turnover was a poor throw, but not necessarily a terrible decision. If Slovis gets more on that ball, it looked like it could have been a TD. Kansas did end up with slightly better field position because of the pick and return. If he had just batted the ball down (as defenders are taught to do on 4th down), the Jayhawks would have had the ball about two yards further back.

No push from the offensive line doomed this team. They couldn't run the ball at all. Not a recipe for success.

This.

[Pelado]

I've watched some lot of college games the last couple of years, if DBs are playing aggressive from the start, they don't call a lot of PIs on them.

If they want to allow the defender to hold the arm of the receiver while the ball is in the air, then they should change the rule book.

[byufan4ever]

If they want to allow the defender to hold the arm of the receiver while the ball is in the air, then they should change the rule book.

Or at least be consistent. If that's how they're going to let the game be played, then our boys need to get on board too!

[Jeff Lebowski]

The no-call on that first hit was ridiculous. If that isn't targeting, there is no such thing. He got a concussion, for hell's sake.

[Bo Diddley]

The no-call on that first hit was ridiculous. If that isn't targeting, there is no such thing. He got a concussion, for hell's sake.

I don't understand the nuance of how they call targeting penalties. As I see it, Kingston was hit under the chin by the defender leading with his shoulder. But since he was a running back, he wasn't a defenseless player. Are both required when the defender doesn't lead with his helmet? Are the refs trying to determine intent?

[beefytee]

I don't know what the rule is, but if they are looking at protecting player, then the rule should be that when the defensive player doesn't attempt to wrap up the ball carrier with his arms and is just delivering a hit, it should be a penalty.

[Bo Diddley]

I don't know what the rule is, but if they are looking at protecting player, then the rule should be that when the defensive player doesn't attempt to wrap up the ball carrier with his arms and is just delivering a hit, it should be a penalty.

That's not always possible, especially on a running back. It's a violent sport.

[Omaha 680]

The text of the targeting rule in college is much longer and more convoluted than in HS. Need one of the "indicators", mentions defenseless player but it doesn't always needs to be defenseless to be called. I should read through it again but they would be well served to simplify it like the HS rule. In high school targeting is just taking aim and initiating contact above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow, or shoulder. It's quite easy to call and clear cut. If the player initiating contact hits his opponent above the shoulders first it is targeting. There are separate rules for illegal helmet contact when a player leads with his helmet but doesnt hit his opponents head and for defenseless players personal fouls.

Under the high school rules 100% the hit on Kingston is targeting. He wasn't a defenseless player because he was the ball carrier and not In a defenseless position such as having his focus on securing a pass. But the contact was clearly initiated above the shoulders (it appear Bryant contacted Kingstons head with his shoulder). I have usually seen this type of hit called targeting in college as well but the rules are so convoluted that I'm not sure if it is technically targeting by the rule book.

Side note: I also like that in high school targeting is not automatically an ejection, but the officials have the discretion to eject on a targeting foul if it is deemed flagrant.

[Bo Diddley]

The text of the targeting rule in college is much longer and more convoluted than in HS. Need one of the "indicators", mentions defenseless player but it doesn't always needs to be defenseless to be called. I should read through it again but they would be well served to simplify it like the HS rule. In high school targeting is just taking aim and initiating contact above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow, or shoulder. It's quite easy to call and clear cut. If the player initiating contact hits his opponent above the shoulders first it is targeting. There are separate rules for illegal helmet contact when a player leads with his helmet but doesnt hit his opponents head and for defenseless players personal fouls.

Under the high school rules 100% the hit on Kingston is targeting. He wasn't a defenseless player because he was the ball carrier and not In a defenseless position such as having his focus on securing a pass. But the contact was clearly initiated above the shoulders (it appear Bryant contacted Kingstons head with his shoulder). I have usually seen this type of hit called targeting in college as well but the rules are so convoluted that I'm not sure if it is technically targeting by the rule book.

Side note: I also like that in high school targeting is not automatically an ejection, but the officials have the discretion to eject on a targeting foul if it is deemed flagrant.

Exactly. But I've seen similar no calls on RB's, so I think that's the difference in this case.

[byufan4ever]

https://www.si.com/college/byu/footb...loss-to-kansas

Highest graded players from the Kansas game. This is just my personal take, but since this is on a 0-100 scale, I take the grades to mean the following, in general:

60s - above average
70s - good game
80s - really good game; candidate for best game of the season
90s - awesome game; carried the team on his shoulders

We were competitive in this game. But, nobody in the 80s. Lots of room for improvement.

1. Paul Maile - 72.4
2. John Nelson - 70.3
3. Brayden Keim - 70.1
4. Kedon Slovis - 70.0
5. Kingsley Suamataia - 69.6
6. Weylin Lapuaho - 69.2
7. Keelan Marion - 67.8
8. Jackson Cravens - 67.2
9. Isaac Rex - 67.1
10. Blake Mangelson - 66.2

[Pelado]

The text of the targeting rule in college is much longer and more convoluted than in HS. Need one of the "indicators", mentions defenseless player but it doesn't always needs to be defenseless to be called. I should read through it again but they would be well served to simplify it like the HS rule. In high school targeting is just taking aim and initiating contact above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow, or shoulder. It's quite easy to call and clear cut. If the player initiating contact hits his opponent above the shoulders first it is targeting. There are separate rules for illegal helmet contact when a player leads with his helmet but doesnt hit his opponents head and for defenseless players personal fouls.

Under the high school rules 100% the hit on Kingston is targeting. He wasn't a defenseless player because he was the ball carrier and not In a defenseless position such as having his focus on securing a pass. But the contact was clearly initiated above the shoulders (it appear Bryant contacted Kingstons head with his shoulder). I have usually seen this type of hit called targeting in college as well but the rules are so convoluted that I'm not sure if it is technically targeting by the rule book.

Side note: I also like that in high school targeting is not automatically an ejection, but the officials have the discretion to eject on a targeting foul if it is deemed flagrant.

After reviewing the 2023 NCAA rulebook, I think it wasn't targeting:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul (Rule 9-6) (A R 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player 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)

The defender didn't strike with the crown of his helmet, so the first rule doesn't apply. Kingston was not a defenseless player, so the second rule doesn't apply. There were, however, indicators of targeting:

- Launch. A player leaving their 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

I still stand by my assertion that the second defensive score should have been called defensive pass interference.

[Omaha 680]

After reviewing the 2023 NCAA rulebook, I think it wasn't targeting:



The defender didn't strike with the crown of his helmet, so the first rule doesn't apply. Kingston was not a defenseless player, so the second rule doesn't apply. There were, however, indicators of targeting:



I still stand by my assertion that the second defensive score should have been called defensive pass interference.

I agree. But see what I mean about the targeting rule being convoluted in college? I'd love to hear a college official or expert explain it but if the letter of the rule allows forcible contact to the ball carrier's head with a shoulder it obviously needs to be changed. I know the spirit of the rule doesn't allow it because when a ball carrier is blown up by contact to the head it is usually called even if the contact isn't made by the defender's helmet. This is another example, much like replay review, where the NCAA rules committe messes it up by overcomplicating it.

[Pelado]

I agree. But see what I mean about the targeting rule being convoluted in college? I'd love to hear a college official or expert explain it but if the letter of the rule allows forcible contact to the ball carrier's head with a shoulder it obviously needs to be changed. I know the spirit of the rule doesn't allow it because when a ball carrier is blown up by contact to the head it is usually called even if the contact isn't made by the defender's helmet. This is another example, much like replay review, where the NCAA rules committe messes it up by overcomplicating it.

Agreed.

[YOhio]

I thought it was a great hit

[Bo Diddley]

I thought it was a great hit

It definitely was.