Targeting is just a bias call?

Regarding the play that resulted in Jake's inury:  I have no idea if it was targeting, because I can't figure out what targeting is.  But it certainly seemed like a late hit to the quarterback, so I expected Michigan to get the 15 yards and automatic first down.  I suppose it depends on whether or not he had started his slide, and that slide looked awkward at best.  Usually officials tend to give the runner the benefit of the doubt, though.  It also seemed like a hit to the head of a quarterback, which is normally called a personal foul anyway.  Strange no-call.

People here are mentioning a requirement of contact with the crown of the helmet.  That's 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."

But targeting can also occur under rule 9-1-4, which says, "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul."  Notice that this rule does NOT require that the offender make contact with the crown of his helmet to commit targeting.

The NCAA needs full time officials.  There also needs to be more transparency in who officiates, especially after the MSU clown show.  And astoundingly, the review officials are worse than anyone.  Sometimes I think my eyes deceive me because the obvious isn't obvious anymore.....

So for all the "corruption" theorists out there, I submit Hanlon's Razor -- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.  I don't think they're out to get us.

Here's my question, though: If a targeting personal foul is a reviewable play which can be overturned by the booth, why aren't *possible* targets plays that the booth can call down for a stoppage of play (like all other reviewable plays)?

Not sure anything would be different for us since the incompetence is only magnified when you get to the replay officials, but still, In the absence of a call, there's no possibility for a booth review to happen.

Shouldn't the refs then always err on the side of throwing the flag and allowing the play to be reviewed?  The official was RIGHT THERE.

This highlights two of the big differences between the pros and college.  In the pros, the refs performance is reviewed every week.  In addition, if something like a bogus targeting penalty is called, the league can overturn any suspension.

Looks like a defenseless player and leading with the crown to me.

The one where Ruddock got hurt didn't look like targeting imo. The hit to the chin he took earlier could have been called for sure. 

 obvious to me, but I can only see a UM player on the ground. I don't see a UM player commiting a foul. So there is no foul.

I very much disagree about the Rudock slide play.  I dont think that should have been targeting at all.

The earlier play on the sideline where they did play minnesota for late hit but not targeting was an obvious targeting.

I can't get my head around the 15 yard fair catch interference call WHEN, AND ONLY WHEN, there is no contact made.  When there is contact, 15 yards is absolutely warranted as punt returners are probably the most defenseless players out there.  But the penalty does not match the infraction without contact.

This rule had a significant impact on the game last night when Thomas was standing too close to the reciever. The refs held a con-fab and dropped a flag out of their pocket like a stray coin.  15 yards later Minny was in business.

This, to me, is similar to marching off 15 yards for off sides, or delay of game. 

The game changes.

Once when the ball went out of bound that was where it was put back into play - there were no hash marks.

Once there was no forward pass. There was no mandatory 7 offensive players on the line of scrimmage.

Referring needs to evolve. There is always a backup referee. He should be upstairs and have ALL of the available feeds. I'm not arguing about this or any other specific play but the basic notion that a bunch of middle aged guys/gals (however nice, dedicated and knowledgeable) on the field can possible see everything that is going on is far fetched. S/He needs to be able to step in and clarify calls.

Football is facing the biggest crisis since the time when Teddy Roosevelt had to step in. Head injuries and concussions will sap the popularity at lower levels - look at how many unfortunate deaths there were this year in high school ball.

I know that it runs the risk of more fouls and slowing the flow of the game but if the aim is injury prevention (helmet to helmet) this is what it will take.

After watching Texas Tech, then Michigan, it's clear I don't understand the targeting rule.

Minnesota has been getting away with that crap for a while. 

Is the fact that this is the second year in a row where Minnesota has targeted and hit our players in obvious targeting and only 1, ONE, flag was thrown in the three occurences that were obvious and worse, targeting was NEVER called.