There is a Forum article (i don't have subscription so I can't read) where Entz said the league told him the no call was wrong. I have not seen anything publicly from the league but we don't know what they said. I've seen situations where a league stated something like "we would have supported targeting" and the coach twisted that to say the call on the field was wrong
It's very possible the league said this should have been called. It's close but depends entirely on how you interpret the crown of the helmet. His facemask and the forehead part of the helmet is what appears to make contact. We've been told the forehead is part of the crown. What I'm not clear on is if the forehead plus part of the top is what they meant (this is how it was always given as an example) or if a hit that includes only the forehead and facemask is also sufficient for 9-1-3 targeting (initiating with crown).
I've shared this with several college officials and the responses based entirely on the guidance they've received on the crown is different. The action the defender had of just trying to blow up a defender rather than tackle him is dangerous and part of what targeting and blindside blocks are trying to reduce. That's why I'm ok if they want this called as targeting. I'm just not 100% certain this meets the current definition. If this is targeting any tackle that includes the facemask and forehead could be targeting. Do we really want that?
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk