[CTcard]

... I seem to recall the TV announcers at one point saying that the officials had ruled that the hit was made with the face mask. They probably heard "front of helmet" and instinctively used what they believed was the more commonly used term for the same thing.

The announcers said that Goodman "hit him in the face mask", meaning that Goodman's helmet hit Owusu's facemask. The announcers made no statement to the effect that Goodman used his own face mask.

All the official said (as we went over a couple of days ago) was that "there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet".

The league apparently refuses to address their non-standard interpretation of "crown."

Well, the league hasn't quite said whether they officially agree with the ruling or not. If you look at the form letter that several people seem to now be receiving in response, it says,
"the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet ".
At no point does the letter say "the Pac-12 agrees that this call was made correctly" or anything to that effect.

I am quite sure that this response was carefully crafted, thus I don't think it was an accident of casual writing that the letter implies agreement with the officials without actually stating such agreement. 

Since part of the point of the letter is practiced ambiguity, of course they are not going to discuss the definition of the crown of the helmet. Or course that discussion would also run into the difficult fact that there is no definition of crown.

[CTcard]

... I seem to recall the TV announcers at one point saying that the officials had ruled that the hit was made with the face mask. They probably heard "front of helmet" and instinctively used what they believed was the more commonly used term for the same thing.

The announcers said that Goodman "hit him in the face mask", meaning that Goodman's helmet hit Owusu's facemask. The announcers made no statement to the effect that Goodman used his own face mask.

All the official said (as we went over a couple of days ago) was that "there was no targeting with the crown of the helmet".

The league apparently refuses to address their non-standard interpretation of "crown."

Well, the league hasn't quite said whether they officially agree with the ruling or not. If you look at the form letter that several people seem to now be receiving in response, it says,
"the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet ".
At no point does the letter say "the Pac-12 agrees that this call was made correctly" or anything to that effect.

I am quite sure that this response was carefully crafted, thus I don't think it was an accident of casual writing that the letter implies agreement with the officials without actually stating such agreement. 

Since part of the point of the letter is practiced ambiguity, of course they are not going to discuss the definition of the crown of the helmet. Or course that discussion would also run into the difficult fact that there is no definition of crown.