Here are the targeting rules:

1. Making Forcible Contact with the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3).
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.

NOTE (The committee is reviewing to see if the area needs to be made larger for Cam Rising's helmet)

Analysis: The first question is-- did the Texas player make forceable contact with the crown of his helmet? It was pretty close in this play, but I would say No-- the contact was more with the front of the helmet than with the crown of the helmet. BUT it was darn close.

2. Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4).

NOTE: These fouls require a "Forcible" contact, meaning something indicating in intent, or NOT and unavoidable contact. Note 1 of this rule helps to understand what an "indicator" is:

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 indications of targeting (emphasis NCAA's) include but are not limited to:

LAUNCH-a player leaving his 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 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.

Analysis: First, was the ASU receiver a defensless player? YES. There is no question about that. A receiver in the act of making a catch is clearly a defensless player. Second, was there forceable contact with the head or neck? No question about that. There was clearly forceable contact with the head or neck, which was evidenced by the concussed player laying on the field.

So, since there was forceable contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player, was one of the indicators present?

Was there a "launch"? Probably not. It looks like the Texas player just ran through the tackle.

Was there a crouch followed by an upward thrust? Nah, not in this one.

Was there leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack the head or neck? Yep. This one. It certainly seems that there was leading with the helmet to attack the head or neck. Now, I will say that the tackle did not look to be malicious. It was a normal football play, but it was too high. It landed on the defenseless players head. It was very nearly done with the crown of the helmet too. This is the rule where it appears that this should have been targeting. Indeed it seems like this is one of the exact plays that the rule was attempting to eliminate from the game.

VERDICT: Targeting under 9-1-4