re: SEC this morning spouting the party line

So you're saying the ref and the league claim that the penalty was roughing the passer because of this:

quote:

---

ou can disagree all you want but the head ref announced it as contact to the head and neck, it was called because of that not because it was late.

---

But at the same time there was absolutely no reason to call for a booth review and go take a look and see if it was targeting, which is this:



"As we mentioned, if a player initiates forcible contact with the crown of the helmet, it doesn’t matter if the player is defenseless or not.

However, if a player is defenseless, you can’t initiate contact above the shoulders, even if you don’t lead with the crown.

Players are also prohibited from targeting and making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

And when dealing with a defenseless player, there still needs to be at least one indicator of targeting."


So we have a by definition defenseless player, who by the referee's and the leagues own admission was roughed by being hit in the head and neck area, but we decided we didn't need to look at it for targeting???

BTW, here are your 4 Key Indicators of targeting:


"Although these are not all the indicators of targeting, here are four key ones defined by the NCAA rulebook:

Launch — a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area

A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area

Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet"


So the replay official or whoever decided that there was no need to look at the play was so 100% certain that Turner didn't do any of these indicators in his cursory look that he decided there was no need to stop play for a targeting review???


They were correct to call roughing the passer for contact to the head and neck. It is absolutely unfathomable in 2023 though, as evidenced by both announcers and the rules expert all wondering whether he was about to get tossed for targeting, that the game was not stopped and a full review of the play was completed. I want to see all the plays so far this year that were worse than that where the game was not stopped for a review. Something is fishy!!