For the 27th time . . .
The penalty against Peavy was called because he initiated contact against a ball carrier using his shoulder into the runner's helmet. Whether or not he did it on purpose is irrelevant. Whether the ball carrier slid or not is irrelevant. At all levels (youth, high school, college, and pro) the authorities are trying to eliminate ANY hit into the helmet area with helmet, arm, fist, or shoulder, etc. Is that fair? Is that right? Feel free to debate that, but it's here to stay like it or not. It's an attempt to save the game (that can be discussed elsewhere) that will take a full generation of players coming up through high school to really change how tackling is done.
Did the officials make a mistake on that play? Yes. The mistake was what they called it. They called it a late hit. They should have called it helmet contact or targeting and likely ejected Peavy. That would have been more consistent (but likely have led to more complaining).
So if you want to complain, that's legit, but realize that your complaint if validated would have led to our player likely being ejected.
Why did the officials announce it as a late hit instead of targeting? Either just plain a miscommunication between the covering official and the referee, or (more likely) the covering official wasn't sure at live game speed if the ball carrier was sliding or not, so he chose the "less severe" penalty as he didn't want to eject Peavy.