No, it's not. It's completely ambiguous.

Sign up, and you can make all message times appear in your timezone. Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Jan 2, 2025
12:42:02pm

SoCalCoug Truly Addicted User

No, it's not. It's completely ambiguous.

What's "natural" vs. "unnatural" about two guys hitting each other as hard as they can?

He used a lot of words without saying anything definitive.

Report problem with this ad

SoCalCoug

Bio page: SoCalCoug
Joined: May 3, 2001
Last login: Jan 4, 2025
Total posts: 53,554 (5,366 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

This is the correct summation of targeting

Indy Coug Loquacious Lummox

Jan 2, 12:13pm

Yeah, because intent is so easy to decipher. 🙄 It’s why the indicators exist.

dtownCoug

Jan 2, 12:14pm

So easy to define and quantify unnatural, as well as judge intent.

rainorsnow

Jan 2, 12:15pm

The issue with targeting is it has been applied very liberally time after time

idcougarfan

Jan 2, 12:16pm

and anyone who saw that hit would call it targeting, it was crown, helmet to helmet, with force, and against a

ChinaFan

Jan 2, 12:16pm

I saw the hit and do no think it was targeting. I was rooting for ASU, so a targeting call would have been nice.

HTCougar

Jan 2, 12:44pm

It was targeting. I don't see how it's debatable. Forcible contact to the neck

rha1211

Jan 2, 1:17pm

I don’t think intent is as important as outcome. Any hit to the head that results in an injury should be targeting.

Littlerich

Jan 2, 12:23pm

No, it's not. It's completely ambiguous.

SoCalCoug

Jan 2, 12:42pm

Plus, that does nothing to address the reason for the targeting rule:

SoCalCoug

Jan 2, 12:43pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad