again, in defense of that call and my continued defense of it...a targeting call is not the same as any other penalty. Throwing the flag and reviewing a targeting penalty mimics our notion of justice. The offender is charged but considered innocent until proven guilty (by the automatic review process). If there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, the flag is dismissed. If replay duplicates what the ref saw and there is not enough evidence to create doubt about it, then the player is disqualified. That's a harsh penalty, so it shouldn't take much doubt to be considered reasonable enough to have the case settled in favor of the charged player. I saw more than enough doubt to create a healthy dose of by God American justice being carried out even there in a football game. I tear up a little because I love America....
...why do some hate it and what it stands for by wanting to impose an unfair targeting penalty like some angry third world lynch mob?
When they first started cracking down on this kind of play, the idea was to protect the players well-being and it may have been necessary to forgo the doubt process in order to get the point across. In other words, targeting was probably judged too harshly to begin with to that end. Now the point has been pretty well made and instances of possible targeting have diminished, and it's easy to see that players have largely learned to avoid the kind of contact in question. So reason has come back into the picture and the play we are discussing was reasonably decided. IMHO, of course.
