I’ve copied and pasted the relevant portion of the rule below. The targeting in question from last night really comes down to whether or not it was forcible contact leading with the helmet. IMO there is no world where the hit would not be considered “forcible contact.”

The only argument against it is whether he actually “led” with his helmet, but I don’t buy this since it says you could lead with your helmet, shoulder, elbow, etc. the intent seems pretty flexible on that point. The initial contact was forcible contact with the helmet to the head and neck area. By definition it seems to me it was absolutely targeting.


ARTICLE 4 No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent 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).

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 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