clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Michigan State Fans and Family Shaking Their Heads Over Lack of Targeting Replay

Where should referees draw the line?

Michigan v Michigan State Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

Once again, targeting calls (or lack thereof) had fans bewildered on Saturday.

Targeting is one rule in college football that baffles most fans. Once again, it seems as though officials do not have the foul pin pointed like they do with other penalties. Where should they draw the line? Our main focus at this time is to determine what the penalty actually is. What does it look like? Because it looks different every time the call is made during a game.

The rule by definition is stated as the following

(Rule 9-1-3): No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question it is a foul.

(Rule 9-1-4): No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

Also, ejections began in games at the beginning of 2013.

The major element of this rule remains the same though, no player shall take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making legal hits.

When Michigan State played Indiana earlier this year Malik McDowell was ejected late in the fourth quarter for targeting.

Most recently most fans thought a targeting call against Michigan was missed. Chris Frey Jr. took the hit.

The call was not made nor was anything said afterwards by any officials or anyone else of importance. Frey’s family was not having it, specifically his father who took to twitter to vent his frustrations.

As fans and people watching the game what did you guys think? Was the hit on Chris Frey Jr. targeting? If so what do officials or the NCAA need to do to ensure vicious and possibly intentional hits like that do not occur.