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

Jan 2, 2025
1:17:50pm

rha1211 Contributor

or head area. Player was defenseless. Led with head (no crown). Textbook Targeting. What are you seeing that makes you think it wasn't?

It's a real question. Not trying to call anybody out.

This message has been modified

Originally posted on Jan 2, 2025 at 1:17:50pm

Message modified by rha1211 on Jan 2, 2025 at 1:18:48pm

Report problem with this ad

rha1211

Bio page: rha1211
Joined: May 25, 2004
Last login: Jan 6, 2025
Total posts: 571 (0 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:

Posting on CougarBoard