This is always my question. Didn't Dickerson had a very (so notable) upright running style? There's the phrase "leading with his helmet" and there's "body mechanics dictate that the face is normally ahead of the rest of the body to balance the legs reaching out when sprinting." I would clarify that definition around the word "lead" to make it more intentional or overtly excessive.
The thing is, most fans can tell you when they see targeting (at least the type of targeting the refs were trying to eliminate from the game), and they can tell you when the helmet to helmet contact shouldn't constitute targeting. The refs can't figure out how to write a rule that properly defines what fans are easily seeing.
Texas Tech and the bookies are already factoring in a targeting penalty against a player in burnt orange.
Just saw a targeting call against a Westlake LB who actually turned his body away from the Lake Travis receiver such that their helmets never touched and the defender hit the receiver with his shoulder pads and he STILL got flagged. This shiite is out of control.
Watching the replay above I am more convinced that it was NOT targeting. Just as Overshawn initiated the contact Harris turned his head directly into Overshawn's facemask. Overshawn initiated contact but Harris did indeed turn his head directly into O's facemask. Captain Obvious concludes: "A total bullsh-t call."
If you look at both plays I would say Ewers was in a much more defenseless position. Ewers was on one leg half in the air and leaning back whole the UTSA QB had both feet planted and his vision cast forward right to where the play came from. Just because a play is made so well that you fail to defend is very different than being in a position unable to defend. If the UTSA play was called based on the "defenseless " notion than it is inconceivable that the Ewers play isnt judged likewise. Problem is, on one play...Ewers...they judged based on one primary criteria....whether he maliciously drove him to the ground or not... but on the UTSA play they did not ultimately judge based on targeting to the head intent only but decided rather to add another, more obscure and also subjective, layer of judgement to what would typically be measured (targeting) and deem the play a foul based on "defenselessness" ....resulting in obvious inconsistency. Thr problem is there is far too much subjectivity, flexibility, and creativity being allowed the officials...but not in a good way. If you are going to allow flexibility and creativity.....utilize it by erring on the side of applying common sense and allowing this to enter the judgement and it be known and obvious rather than pretending you are following the letters of the laws consistently.
i was not a big fan of the move to the SEC but I understood why it made sense. Now I just want out of the BIG 12.
