[82 Card]

[quote author=82 Card link=topic=15760.msg173280#msg173280 date=1474861274]
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent.

Yes, theoretically those words could mean different things, which is why I wrote "While I guess technically there is some room to quibble about just what that covers, ..."
However, under the circumstances the fact that the referee specified that there was no targeting "with the crown of the helmet" makes it rather clear in practice what was meant.
[/quote]

I see the statement as a recitation of the infraction considered and not as an indication that the crown of the helmet is the missing element.

[82 Card]

[quote author=82 Card link=topic=15760.msg173280#msg173280 date=1474861274]
The statement that there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet doesn't tell us which element they found to be missing. Even if the hit was with the crown of the helmet, it theoretically could be determined not to be targeting because of a lack of malicious intent.

Yes, theoretically those words could mean different things, which is why I wrote "While I guess technically there is some room to quibble about just what that covers, ..."
However, under the circumstances the fact that the referee specified that there was no targeting "with the crown of the helmet" makes it rather clear in practice what was meant.
[/quote]

I see the statement as a recitation of the infraction considered and not as an indication that the crown of the helmet is the missing element.