Subscriber Questions For UNC Football Show
- By gdean44
- Blue Heaven
- 6 Replies
This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.
Translation for Idiots: Elon Musk endorses Donald Trump, Mark Cuban endorses Kamala Harris.
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....no, the angle you showed does not prove targeting. It suggests the possibility of it and that's all. To be targeting, the offending player is using the crown of his helmet to make contact, or purposely going for the head/neck area of a defenseless player ( a runner is not considered defenseless ). That isn't the same as contact being incidentally made while tackling with other parts of the body, especially when helmet crown contact isn't perfectly clear. What is clear is that although the tacklers head was lowered and that helmet to helmet contact was apparently made, the tackle was principally shoulder to shoulder.