During Tuesday night’s game between FAU and Akron in the Cheribundi Tart Cherry Boca Raton Bowl, FAU defensive back Andrew Soroh was flagged for targeting in the second quarter on a late hit on Akron running back Van Edwards Jr. The hit came after Edwards Jr. was overthrown, and Soroh came in hard.
FAU was lucky this late, hard hit was *only* ruled unsportsmanlike conduct
It was originally ruled as targeting.
The refs originally called targeting on the play, which would have been an automatic ejection, but it was overturned after review. So instead, Soroh was given an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for the late hit. Even FAU head coach Lane Kiffin thought the hit was bad when it was replayed on the Jumbotron:
Whether or not a play is targeting is up to the officials during the review. Here are the specifics for the rule, from the NCAA rulebook:
No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) 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). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
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 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 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
While this hit was hard, and obviously late, it’s not 100 percent clear that it was definitely targeting in this case. There was definitely something about the play the referees saw to change the call on the field. But there probably are some Akron fans who would beg to differ.
See More:
