Undisputedly in our family, there\u2019s been an excessive amount of football filling the TV screens as of late. Between the college bowl battles and professional teams jockeying for playoff position, our gridiron vernacular has been in frequent use.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s one penalty, no less, that seems to draw the ire \u2014 albeit also confusion \u2014 of everyone in the room… even from the less attentive, more casual fan\u2026<\/p>\n
Targeting.<\/strong><\/p>\n To target means to \u201cselect as an object of attention or attack.\u201d<\/p>\n According to the official rules of the NCAA [emphasis mine]:<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cNo player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul\u2026<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Note 1: \u2019Targeting\u2019 means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking<\/strong> with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Targeting is designed to limit dangerous hits. It is a selective assessment \u2014 a judgment call, if you will.<\/p>\n The penalty continues to drive fans crazy.<\/p>\n While few fans are thrilled with the accompanying player ejection, the controversy seems to exist because of the inconsistency in application. Remember, \u201cwhen in question, it is a foul.\u201d<\/em> Different people \u2014 looking at the situation from different angles \u2014 will call different things into question.\u201d And to be a foul, the situation only has to be questioned. The rule does not require a helmet-to-helmet hit (Intramuralist foreshadow: it doesn\u2019t require any face-to-face, seeking-first-to-understand interaction either).<\/em><\/p>\n Observers are attempting to discern the motive or purpose of another. They are attempting to assess intent. And the only observation that counts in their binding assessment is what they visibly see.<\/p>\n In other words, we are making judgment calls based solely on what we see\u2026<\/p>\n That means we are not getting to know those involved.\u00a0We are not… We are making judgment calls instead.<\/p>\n We are judging purpose based on what we see, thinking that\u2019s all that\u2019s relevant.<\/p>\n What we see is<\/em> relevant; but what we see is not enough. When we judge based solely on what we see, we omit unseen angles; we omit unspoken motive; we omit other important aspects, that we haven’t taken the time to understand, that take far more than intellect or experience to comprehend. We then end up making assessments that are inconsistent and potentially inaccurate, even though we feel<\/em> we\u2019re right. We\u2019re convinced<\/em> we\u2019re right.<\/p>\n Why?<\/p>\n Because we saw<\/em> it.<\/p>\n Face-to-face contact is necessary. Putting ourself in another\u2019s shoes is necessary\u2026 so is listening\u2026 asking good questions\u2026 being humble, selfless and genuine in our response… resisting the temptation to judge from afar.<\/p>\n When we feel we can judge the purpose of another solely based on what we see, we adopt a practice which causes further controversy because it is selectively, inconsistently applied.<\/p>\n Respectfully\u2026 Undisputedly in our family, there\u2019s been an excessive amount of football filling the TV screens as of late. Between the college bowl battles and professional teams jockeying for playoff position, our gridiron vernacular has been in frequent use. There\u2019s one penalty, no less, that seems to draw the ire \u2014 albeit also confusion \u2014 of … <\/p>\n
\n\u2026 asking good questions\u2026
\n\u2026 asking hard questions\u2026
\n\u2026 listening to all that makes that person tick\u2026
\n\u2026 and we are not seeking first to understand\u2026<\/p>\n
\nAR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"