[82 Card]

[quote author=82 Card link=topic=15760.msg173280#msg173280 date=1474861274]
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent. Things like leading with the head and launching are possible indicators of bad intent. However, if the ref thinks the guy was trying to do a legal tackle, it's OK even if he maims the guy with the crown of his helmet.

To me, it looks like an intentional hit to the head with the helmet He lowered his head, lead with his head and made no effort to wrap his arms around Owusu. The head but wasn't incidental to a tackle, it was the tackle. Not sure how much clearer malicious intent can be, but that was our player being maimed so I am not exactly impartial.

I don't think "intent" is required for the violation.

RULES

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet  (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player  (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.  (Rule 2-27-14)

[/quote]

Apparent intent is an element of the infraction. "Target and initiate contact with the crown of the helmet" indicates that there are two elements. Initiating contact with the crown of the helmet alone is not sufficient. "Target" is defined as "to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." This is what I referred to as "evil intent."

I think the video shows evil intent. Given that the only action is a head butt and there is no indication of an attempt to make a legal tackle, what else could it be?

[82 Card]

[quote author=82 Card link=topic=15760.msg173280#msg173280 date=1474861274]
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent. Things like leading with the head and launching are possible indicators of bad intent. However, if the ref thinks the guy was trying to do a legal tackle, it's OK even if he maims the guy with the crown of his helmet.

To me, it looks like an intentional hit to the head with the helmet He lowered his head, lead with his head and made no effort to wrap his arms around Owusu. The head but wasn't incidental to a tackle, it was the tackle. Not sure how much clearer malicious intent can be, but that was our player being maimed so I am not exactly impartial.

I don't think "intent" is required for the violation.

RULES

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet  (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player  (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.  (Rule 2-27-14)

[/quote]

Apparent intent is an element of the infraction. "Target and initiate contact with the crown of the helmet" indicates that there are two elements. Initiating contact with the crown of the helmet alone is not sufficient. "Target" is defined as "to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." This is what I referred to as "evil intent."

I think the video shows evil intent. Given that the only action is a head butt and there is no indication of an attempt to make a legal tackle, what else could it be?