I already have. The picture that was posted earlier was mine copied from a post in this thread. It doesn't change the fact he led with his shoulder, hit with his shoulder, and the helmet impact followed that. If his intentions, as you see (? really, see intentions?) were to hit him in the targeting area he missed...while looking directly at what he hit.I didn't have any problem with it as the rule goes. Follow the hit all the way through and it's plenty clear enough. I saw clearly his intentions and he got what he was aiming at when you send the helmet high. Just because these guys quickly come down with a bad case of buyer's remorse after the fact doesn't change it with me.
Hell, White's hit in the MSU game was higher and many came to his defense that it wasn't targeting.
Why they call it isn't lost on me. The ambiguity is what drives me to question just about every targeting call they make. Right now, it's just a bad rule.

