would disagree with the call but understand why it was called. Nacua led with his helmet initially and ended up hitting Simpkins high. The optics didn't help his cause.

It's debatable -- and most would probably agree with BYU -- but it's not as ridiculous or as blatant as BYU fans make it out to be.

THe second call was direct helmet to helmet. You won't get a lot of sympathy from that.

I believe most people would also object to the holding call the play before -- so given that context, you'll find even less support.

From a national perspective, folks don't pick stories unless it supports some other narrative or agenda they want to push. So the anti targeting folks might pick up on this. But it since didn't impact the final score, it probably won't be used much.

If you're waiting for national press to come in and anoint BYU the winner because of these plays --- it's not going to happen. They'll see the int on the next play and the muffed punt return and ask why BYU didn't capitalize on either.

They they'll see UU running up the gut play after play with the third string RB (remember McCormick is out because of McChesney's hit) and conclude that UU had more depth and won the field position, time of possession and LOS battle.

Even if they disagreed with the call, there isn't much of a story there. They'll see the complaining as sour grapes.