You only need one out of launch, lower the head, forcible contact to the head or neck area. Turner met all 3. I'm willing to entertain an argument that he didn't lower the head enough, but the other two are indisputable.
Doesn't matter what we think about the rule. Under the rule it was targeting. We've been nailed for targeting with far less egregious hits, which is one reason it sits so poorly with some fans. You know something's up when even Danielson and Gene Steritore are calling for targeting. Didn't think I'd ever see that.
I failed to add Jaxon Dart earlier....Turner also knocked him out last year, along with Ewers. He's a great player. He's also dirty. It is what it is. Many great players are dirty.
he's not dirty, i will fight that all day.
also didn't launch. one foot was on ground when he makes contact, and the other was mid step and makes contact with ground after contact. that's not launching. not sure i agree with lowering the head either. it's facemask to facemask. contact with the head is indisputable, so that fits. but not sure how guys are supposed to hit each other head on without contact to the head or without ducking/lowing head. one has to happen.
100% on there being many many calls for much less than that hit. don't like them either.
i don't think i'd argue too much if it was called targeting, though i still don't think it should be. but i would hate it because it was NOT a dirty play and it's unfortunate daniels got injured. but i wouldn't hate it for the penalty, but for the disqualifying. there is nothing in that play to suggest he should be kick out of the game. no more than the horse collar tackle called later, or the blind side block.
it's a violent sport and we have to accept that sometime violent things happen that might cause injuries. maybe they deserve penalties, but it's also part of the nature of the game that things like that will happen. and just because they happen doesn't mean it was dirty and that the player needs to be disqualified. and for virtually everything else in the game, we do accept that. but for some reason, targeting is treated differently. and don't tell me it's more violent play either. i've seen plenty of injuries from horse collars, crack back blocks, chop blocks, facemask, roughing the passer/kicker, unnecessary roughness, late hits, hit out of bounds, spearing, clipping, and unsportsmanlike conduct. all of those are injury preventative rules. none require disqualification. some can rise to the level, but only in extremely severe, non-football circumstances (like fights are unsportsmanlike and can lead to disqualifying, but so is trash talk and it's not disqualifying). i don't understand why targeting is treated differently, and until that's changed, i'll be against targeting in general.
of course, i'm a hypocrite and will take the calls that benefit my team, but still...
