Khaleke Hudson
I have seen a lot of arguments popping up about how bad of a call it was to send Khaleke Hudson to the locker room for targeting SMU quarterback William Brown on Saturday. I argued with people on Twitter for a while, which is never a good idea, so I don’t know why I wasted my time.
But this is a great place to waste some of my time, so here I go:
The confusion seems to stem from the idea that targeting requires a “defenseless” victim. “Defenseless” applies to a quarterback who has just thrown a pass, a receiver who is in the process of completing a catch, a defender who is blocked from the blind side, etc. However, being defenseless is not required for targeting to be called. It’s simply the most common call.
From the NCAA rulebook (LINK):
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With
the Crown of the Helmet—ARTICLE 3
Approved Ruling 9-1-3
I. Passer A12 inside the tackle box is looking for an open receiver. Before
or just as he releases the ball, A12 is hit from the side at the ribs, thigh
or knee by B79, who dives forward and leads with the crown (top) of
his helmet. This occurs in the (a) first half; (b) second half. RULING:
Foul by B79 for targeting his opponent and initiating contact with
the top of his helmet. 15 yards, first down. B79 is automatically
disqualified (a) for the remainder of the game. (b) for the remainder of
the game and the first half of the next game.
In the example above, A12 is not a defenseless player. He is in the process of throwing the ball, and he is hit from the side. It doesn’t matter in this case that he was hit in the ribs, thigh, or knee. What matters is that defender B79 hit him with the crown of his helmet, which has been redefined from the past as being the part of the helmet above the facemask and encircling 360 degrees of the helmet.
In Michigan’s game against SMU, Brown was not defenseless. He was not in the grasp of defenders. His forward progress had not been stopped. Hudson was guilty of targeting Brown because – and only because – he made forcible contact with the crown of his helmet. Football used to call this “spearing” but spearing is no longer in the rulebook. Spearing doesn’t exist anymore, as it has been replaced under the umbrella of “targeting.” If Hudson had lowered his head to initiate contact with the crown of his helmet to Brown’s chest or midsection, it could still be targeting because of the orientation of Hudson’s helmet.
Here’s the only video I can find so far:
Targeting. Khaleke Hudson is ejected pic.twitter.com/XUn77nXJSf
— Dustin Schutte (@SchutteCFB) September 15, 2018
Another example:
BJ Foster will miss the first half of next week’s game against TCU because of this hit, a major loss for the Horns. pic.twitter.com/mVRHFVQIks
— Edward Egros (@EdwardEgrosFox4) September 16, 2018
You need to login in order to vote
I still don’t get it. What is “forcible contact?”
Hudson moved his head, which I assume to lead with his shoulder, but the other guy is moving too
Same with Mettelus in week1. He’s coming full speed, and the receiver went up to catch, and then is on his way down. That’s an awfully short distance-at a high rate of speed-to calculate the answer to a geometry question…
The alternative is playing it soft, and giving up a big play
You need to login in order to vote
I’m not going to even pretend to understand it. Football penalties are getting to be like fouls in basketball – totally arbitrary & discretionary calls by the refs: holding, pass interference, roughing the passer, targetting. Evidently they try to err on the side of ‘safety’ but I still enjoy the old black & white clips when head slapping & clotheslining was common and I’ll always love seeing the Lions hit when johnson got ‘Keyshawned’…………..
Just saying…………INTjohn
You need to login in order to vote
Targeting is getting Keyshawned:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XhtqhwK2er0
THAATS Targeting……………INTJohn
You need to login in order to vote
Hudson’s “launching” and getting his head into the play left it up to the officials. I think the reason you’re seeing so much arguing about it is because of two reasons:
1 – The inconsistent way refs call targeting all the time. The more inconsistent they are, the harder it is to understand the definition.
2 – You rarely see it called in the tackle box. Similar to how you could call targeting on a running back who lowers his head and drives into a defender, but it never gets called. A guy in the middle of the pile where bodies are flying all over and the height of everyone’s helmets changes quickly, the refs usually avoid calling it.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t have been called or wasn’t targeting – I’ll agree that it was on the wrong side of the gray area. I’m just explaining why you’re yelling at people on the internet.
I’d rather talk about how these refs had a different interpretation of pass interference than most crews. Or maybe that it is seemingly now legal to wrap your hands around a defender without getting a holding call. The fact that Gary and Winovich have probably earned less than 5 holding calls in their career is insane.
You need to login in order to vote
First, I think you guys are wrong and that was not targeting. Even the word targeting requires intent. You cannot target someone by accident. If you disagree, then you need to come up with a new word for the rule.
Second, in the text of the rule, it says with the crown (top) of the helmet. Until they amend that definition, that means the top. No way you will convince me that Hudson lead with the top of his helmet. If he bangs the side of his helmet against a player incidentally while leading with his should, he is not “targeting” with the top of his helmet.
Third, yes players in the box should have greater latitude because they are not “launching” themselves into players, they are just trying to make tackles.
Fourth, it was even a worse call considering that, just before that play, an SMU player did forcibly launch himself into a player’s helmet and clearly led with the top and there was no targeting. It’s borderline insanity to call Hudson’s hit a target and to conclude the other one was not.
You need to login in order to vote
1. There is no mention of intent (or lack of intent) in the rule book. It’s harder to determine intent than it is to determine actions.
2. The definition of the crown of the helmet is 360 degrees encircling the entire helmet, from the top of the facemask up. I actually think that’s a pretty solid definition, because if you wear a crown (or baseball cap, even), that covers the top of your head where targeting would be involved.
3. How do you know players inside the box aren’t launching themselves?
4. I agree that the previous kick return (the hit on Jacob West) should have been targeting.
You need to login in order to vote
Hudson lead with his shoulder. The runner, lowered his head and initiated contact with that part of his body. The quarterback was the one that caused the head to head collision. If anything, he was targeting by using the crown of his helmet as a weapon. Do not know what Hudson could have done different. Just one of a number of horrible calls by the refs in this game.
You need to login in order to vote
The runner lowered his head and pointed it toward empty space. I don’t see how that’s initiating contact with his head. It’s like blaming somebody for getting T-boned driving down a highway when the other guy ran a stop sign. The SMU player is not restricted from lowering his head and pointing it toward emptiness. It’s the defensive player’s job to adjust.
You need to login in order to vote
Again, I would say the reason you say it’s not initiating contact with his head is that the ball carrier did not intend to hit Hudson with his helmet. I.e. it’s definitely relevant what the intent is. Targeting by it’s definition is purposeful action.
And is addressing your point, there are many plays each game where a RB lowers his head before hitting a pile (not emptiness). Are you going to call targeting then? BTW, Harbaugh raised this point today in the press conference.
Finally, Hudson did adjust. You can see that he turned away a bit at the last minute to avoid direct helmet to helmet hit.
You need to login in order to vote
See, you’re interpreting intent. I’m saying you’re not allowed to in this case. It doesn’t matter whether the runner put down his head or not, because he did not initiate contact. Intent didn’t matter. Purposeful or not, Hudson was the one who delivered the blow, and it happened to be with his helmet.
You’re making an interpretation that isn’t there regarding the word “targeting.” You’re taking your meaning of the word on a daily basis (“I was targeting 8:00 for arrival”) and applying it to a thing in which that’s not a part of the definition. If I cover my eyes and run straight downfield with my head down and I run into an opponent, that’s targeting, even though I never saw anyone I was going to hit.
Again, there’s NO mention of intent in the rule book. Holding is holding, whether you meant to or not. Roughing the passer is roughing the passer, whether you meant to or not.
You need to login in order to vote
I agree and you are right. But my point is that I think the rule was “intended” to include some level of intent, even if it was not written that way. And what we are seeing now is that literal interpretations of the rule are often taking it too far. I would also ask, how many other penalties that result in a player being kicked out of the game do not require some level of intent? I am trying to think of another example. You are right that intent is difficult to police. Possibly we need to have two different levels – intentional targeting results in disqualification while accidental “targeting” is just a 15 yarder (which is the result where there is a personal foul but not “targeting”).
You need to login in order to vote
Thunder – What was your opinion on the hit McKeon took against ND? I thought it was marginal and I was upset that it didn’t get flagged and go to replay at least.
You need to login in order to vote
I remember thinking it should have been targeting at the time, but I don’t think I saw a replay, so I haven’t seen it since.
You need to login in order to vote
Just wanted to raise this discussion again especially given Hudson’s latest ejection and some inconsistencies around the country.
Wanted to make sure people saw the following from the USC/Wa State game
https://www.cougcenter.com/2018/9/22/17890080/wsu-vs-usc-targeting-gardner-minshew
Now take a look at that and please explain how Hudson’s ejections are even close to this. Yet the Hudson ejections are enforced and the USC player is not ejected and even upon review, no mistake is found or admitted.
You need to login in order to vote
Yep, this dude should have been ejected, too.
You need to login in order to vote