You need to read and reference the rest of what I said to be able to attempt a refutation. (Sorry for the too many r's).

How many have you seen leave their feet BEFORE and AFTER the hit? The rule is worded in such a way that presumes what normally happens -- a player leaves his feet and THEN hits the opponent. In this case, he clearly got to the opponent before his lower body "expected" (if you will) him to get there. The fact that his feet left the ground at all indicates a launch.

I will concede this is a bit technical but the intent of the rule, as has been stated, is to take these types of hits out of the game completely. Arguing about only one part of the launch definition when EVERY OTHER WORD IN THE DEFINITION was met is beyond silly.

I defy anyone who is arguing this isn't targeting to suggest that the committee would view this hit and say, "yes, we have no problem with this hit remaining in the game but it is the other types of hits we want out..." THAT is how you need to view the targeting hits. Not to mention the when in question directive. It IS a foul.

The replay official in the booth looked at this hit and decided in real time not to buzz down and stop the game. He said afterwards that when he looked at it, this play wasn't targeting.

And I say he's wrong, egregiously so.

Those were his words almost verbatim. He said the hit did not rise to an egregious level, which is what they have to look for when the booth initiates a replay of this kind.

I'll admit, when I saw it live I thought he was going to get ejected, but after seeing the replay, I didn't think it was targeting.