I initially responded to the Washington post by referring to the hit on Reed as being “closer to targeting” than the Washington play. You responded that it was a shoulder to shoulder (which I believe is incorrect) and doesn’t meet the definition of defenseless. You tend to post your opinions as though they are fact. I posted an article which discusses targeting calls, intending to illustrate that the Reed play could be interpreted as a penalty, depending on what is considered a blindside block. Ftw responded to my post that Gamboa should have been ejected. You responded to Ftw that there was more to the rule than what I posted (I posted a link to an article discussing the rule). I was responding to this post, that I assumed, by logically tracking through the direct responses, you were referring to the Reed play. I posted the LSU play as an example of a play where the defensive player was in pursuit and aggressively involved in the play, but was blindsided up high, resulting in a flag. Not totally dissimilar to the Reed play. I was merely trying to illustrate that there is a fine line and different refs, fans, coaches, players will always interpret the plays differently. They are subjective penalties. There is room for everyone to have an opinion. If you look at the play I was referencing, the offensive player started down the 30+ yard line and made contact with Read on the 29+ yard line. So technically he was behind the defender. We are splitting hairs here. You could probably ask 100 people if it was a blindside block and get 100 answers. But I would guess there are quite a few that would view it as a blindside block and that, coupled with the contact near the head and neck area, could be interpreted as targeting.
I use the same kind of litmus test that you are talking about. Would I like it if the situation were reversed. I also like to consider whether the play (no call) results in any significant advantage to either team (no harm, no foul). The difference is, that I recognize that others may view the play differently than me. You tend to post your opinions as facts and use absolutes in an attempt to add validity to your opinion while discounting others. You state in this response that “as an evaluation of the official, no way is the hit on Reed a penalty”. Can you really say that there is “no way” that an evaluator would see that play as a penalty? What if the play was initially called a penalty on the field, are they going to say the ref was wrong to make that subjective call? You said, in a response to me earlier that “we all want that call if it’s Morgan getting lit up”. How can you possibly determine what we “all” want. I honestly would not have a problem if the situations were reversed and the flag would not have been thrown. (I assume you are talking about the hit Reed made on the Colorado receiver, resulting in a flag). The ball was in the vicinity of the receiver, no helmet to helmet, it was not an overly viscous hit, his head was up at contact, and no significant advantage was gained by the hit or would have been gained by not throwing the flag. Would it have been better had he recognized that the receiver had given up on the play and pulled up? Of course, you never want to put the decision of a subjective call in the hands of a ref if you don’t have to.
