Things that don’t factor into the decision to call a targeting foul, according to the rulebook, include: how superhumanly tough the television viewer thinks football players should aspire to be, how much the fan in the stands enjoyed football’s previously higher levels of violence, the TV commentator's worries that this is all becoming flag football, the coach's conclusion that avoiding a targeting hit would require a player to approach a play awkwardly, or the reader's assumption that the writer of this article never Played The Game.
Is this necessary? I feel that this takes away from his article because of the smart language he is using, He sounds like a "know it all".