
I am interested in the targeting penalty and its effect on football because I am a huge football fan and I watch football all of the time. The game of football has changed a lot because of the targeting penalty and I want to explain why this change is taking place. This issue affects me personally because as a viewer I am affected by the penalty because some would argue that the quality and the tenacity of the game has suffered greatly due to the possible penalty awaiting a player who is trying to effectively defend against opponents. My personal experience with this issue is that one of my friends from high school is a college football player at Clemson and he has come to me to complain about the penalty many times. He expresses his concerns about the penalty to me often because he is a defensive back which is a position that is flagged for this penalty often, and this qualifies me to write about this topic. 

The first source that I found during my research is an article coming from Marc Weiszer who interviewed several different coaches about the targeting penalty. The central claim of the article is that the NCAA needs to review the targeting penalty rule and make sure that it is the right thing to do for the game of football and the players involved. The major evidence for the article comes from a Georgia player who was ejected but then after review was allowed to come back into the game. The major values at stake are the players in general who are penalized for no reason. Georgia was penalized but later recognized for not actually committing the foul but the team they were playing still got 15 yards out of the penalty and the player that was ejected and then brought back was greatly affected emotionally. The author himself is not very bias because he is just simply reporting on the topic but the coaches involved that were being interviewed are very bias because they were directly affected by the penalty in a negative way.

The second source that I found is an example of how the targeting penalty can cause players to hit receivers lower to avoid receiving a targeting penalty. This tactic can cause a great increase in lower-body injuries and this article expresses NFL players' opinions about how lower body injuries worry them more than concussions. The major values at stake are the leagues' values. The NFL wants to protect their players and avoid bodily injury. They are specifically concerned with the head and concussions. However, the league fails to realize that players are more worried about lower body injuries considering a knee or leg injury can end their career. The targeting penalty will inevitably cause more of these career ending injuries. This information comes to this source via survey and the survey is unbiased because it comes from athletes all across the NFL and from many different teams, and the majority declare that lower body injuries worry them more than a concussion.

The third source that I found is an example showing that even officials are struggling with the new targeting penalty and they don't know what to call targeting. This article shows that the official's ignorance regarding what is targeting and what is not can have a direct effect on a game and in a negative way. The central claim of this argument is that referees are not to blame for bad calls regarding targeting because the rule is not clear enough and they are simply abiding by a flawed rule. The major values at stake are referees' credibility in officiating a game. If some of the best referees in the world can't accurately officiate a game because of a controversial targeting penalty then the penalty needs to be fixed. The author of this article shows a biased view because he discusses how he thinks that the rule itself is to blame for controversy and not the referees involved in officiating the game.

My research question is arguable because some people may believe that the targeting penalty is not controversial and that it does not negatively affect the game of football. I agree that the targeting penalty is hard to understand for many officials and that it needs to be clearer. I also agree that lower body injuries can be much more dangerous and long term than concussion. I don't believe concussion are a good thing but I do think that knee or leg injuries can be much worse. The different perspectives of this topic have made me realize that the penalty affects the game more than people realize and action needs to be taken. People need to see this penalty and all of its faults. My research question may need to be revised into not being bias against the targeting penalty.
