Not a fan of the penalty myself but wasn’t that clear targeting? Maybe I’m missing something, but he hit the guy in the head with his shoulder. Isnt that clearly targeting? Honest question, not being argumentative.
If the WR was still "defenseless" when he was hit, then I agree the call was correct. The part that confuses me is they also called it a catch. I don't think this is written in the rules, but philosophically if he had the ball long enough to be a catch he shouldn't be defenseless anymore.
My personal opinion is it should only be called if the tackler uses his head to spear the player. How was the OSU guy supposed to lay the hit if the WR’s head is leading? Dude used his body to hit him. I hate the call
I know it's unhealthy, but gawd how I hate Slo-hio State. Next up for the Nuts is Pedo State. Should be an interesting game.
There's an argument to be made that is was the "correct call" by the letter of the law. Regardless I hate everything associated with targeting.
That’s kinda where I was. But I agree with @Skink in that my opinion is it should only be called if a player is leading. He obviously wasn’t but the way it’s written it seems like it met the official definition.
Yep, I was only speaking to the letter of the rule, which I think supports the call that was made. I know lots of people hate targeting. I support the spirit of the targeting rule but admit they haven't quite gotten the criteria right yet. That play shouldn't be targeting, I don't know what else the defender could do. But completely doing away with targeting isn't the right thing to do either.
