“Targeting”, the “Swiss Army Knife” of SJW apologists.

The NCAA has established very severe penalties for “targeting”, defined as hitting defenseless opponents above the shoulders or using the crown of the helmet to contact an opponent. Football referees will now stop games to immediately review when players are penalized and face ejection for targeting  The NCAA Football Rules Committee took steps to further protect student-athletes by proposing a rule to eject players who target and contact defenseless players above the shoulders. The committee, which met Monday-Wednesday, unanimously voted to increase the on-field penalty for targeting. The penalty, if approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, will be a 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection of the player. 

The NFL doesn’t yet have a targeting penalty, but the NFL rule book does define what a “defenseless posture” is. “Players in a defenseless posture are:

  1. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass (passing posture)
  2. A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player
  3. The intended receiver of a pass in the action during and immediately following an interception or potential interception. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player.
    Note: Violations of this provision will be enforced after the interception, and the intercepting team will maintain possession.
  4. A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped
  5. A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air
  6. A player on the ground
  7. A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return (Also see Article 6(h) for additional restrictions against a kicker/punter)
  8. A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 9(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession)
  9. A player who receives a “blindside” block when the path of the offensive blocker is toward or parallel to his own end line.
  10. A player who is protected from an illegal crackback block (see Article 2)
  11. The offensive player who attempts a snap during a Field Goal attempt or a Try Kick.

Basically, “targeting” and “defenseless” are well defined and very important for protection of players’ health. Then there is “targeting of under-represented minorities“, which is ill-defined, totally subjective, and actually imperils long-term health by creating a fantasy world where the feelings of the most sensitive, or even the most willfully blind, are pandered to. Isn’t it interesting that campus thought police, sometimes called faculty or administrators—when they are doing the job for which they are paid—borrow the term from their hated, scorned too-insensitive sport, football (American football, not that other football that so beguiles social justice rhetoricians).

Back to “targeting of ‘ underrepresented minorities’.” It is often said that voter ID laws “target” blacks, the reason being that a disproportionate number of blacks, unlike whites or Asians, do not have an identification card. In academic and intellectual contexts, “target” functions with similar mindlessness: If you say something that anybody but a white cisgender hetero man disagrees with or doesn’t like, then you are “targeting” him or her. The Swiss Army Knife is an actual product known for it’s compactness, efficiency and multiple uses, but has come to denote almost anything that serves many functions. I apologize to the Swiss Army for my use of the latter meaning. I wouldn’t want to offend.

Targeting has become the “Swiss Army Knife” of SJW apologists. It sounds brutal, cruel, or thoughtless, like targeting in football, but here, in SJW world, the “defenseless players” are anyone who wilts whenever their orthodoxy is questioned. How pathetic. Badminton, anyone? (Yes, I do mean to offend)