[French Rage]

And given how vaguely defined the "top" of the helmet is, it is something that could be interpreted broadly, especially since the clause, "when in doubt, it is considered targeting" invites a broad interpretatio.

BC

Plus I would think common sense would be used in the definition.  It should be however close enough to the top allows the hitter to deliver a dangerous amount of force to the hittee.  And that's definitely the case here.  I understand that, say, grazing somehow with the side of your helmet might not deliver enough force, and that a hit with the facemask (of the hitter) might not deliver the ummph needed to endanger the hittee.  But in this case it clearly did the type of damage that we are trying to protect against.  Unless the exact tip-top point of the helmet has some crazy amount of super force I'm unaware of.

[French Rage]

And given how vaguely defined the "top" of the helmet is, it is something that could be interpreted broadly, especially since the clause, "when in doubt, it is considered targeting" invites a broad interpretatio.

BC

Plus I would think common sense would be used in the definition.  It should be however close enough to the top allows the hitter to deliver a dangerous amount of force to the hittee.  And that's definitely the case here.  I understand that, say, grazing somehow with the side of your helmet might not deliver enough force, and that a hit with the facemask (of the hitter) might not deliver the ummph needed to endanger the hittee.  But in this case it clearly did the type of damage that we are trying to protect against.  Unless the exact tip-top point of the helmet has some crazy amount of super force I'm unaware of.