| More Sports |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom | Page 1 of 2  |
| Message |
| NCAA recommends ejection for targeting defenseless players Posted by medtiger LINK  on 2/13 at 1:19 pmI'm all for player safety, but this is getting ridiculous, especially this part: quote: Reply • Back to Top |
quote: ..and it's only gonna continue to get worse. Reply • Back to Top |
| No way to be fair in this. There are times where someone is not flagged and fined, then others not fined but flagged. This post was edited on 2/13 at 1:22 pm Reply • Back to Top |
 god bless americaReply • Back to Top |
quote: This is college football...there are no fines. This will be only for hits that are flagged on the field. Reply • Back to Top |
| The interpretations of these hits will vary across the board. Reply • Back to Top |
NCAA- the new flag football league  Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Exactly. I have no problem with an ejection for a clear, flagrant hit. Where do they draw the line though. This post was edited on 2/13 at 1:32 pm Reply • Back to Top |
| Can you imagine how 1 call can ruin a game. or a SEASON Reply • Back to Top |
| Except when Bama does it in the SEC title game Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Are you defenseless if you are moving towards the play? Reply • Back to Top |
| Was Smith (Michigan) 'defenseless'? Was Clowney 'targeting' him? There is already enough leeway in the rules for a ref to toss someone for excessive deliberate viciousness. This rule would just screw up the first 2 or 3 games of the season, then be ignored, then get pulled out at the worst possible time in a late game. Better to just put a word in the refs' and coaches' ears in the preseason, and make it clear to both groups that a-holery will merit an ejection if somebody might get hurt, and the NCAA will back up the refs in any argument. Reply • Back to Top |
| So would Loston had been ejected for the phantom hit on the USC WR even though he didn't make contact? There was a foul called and as Kirk H put it, there was intent. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: That would be my concern, too. Maybe a more-or-less incidental but hard helmet to helmet, which seems to get called quite a bit, should get just the PF call, and the ejection should be reserved for when it's clearly deliberate. Same deal on crossing pattern collisions -- it seems to me there's a difference between a hard hit that could get flagged because the hitter could have avoided it (at the risk of a big play against him) and a guy clearly nailing somebody who doesn't have a prayer of making a catch (or tackle). I'd be afraid that any new rule would lump those things together; better to let the refs decide and just encourage them to be tougher on the truly bad plays. Coaches and players will go right up to the line (and a little beyond once in a while) if the line is a bright one. Any rule that codifies the 'ejection' line will just create a new standard for play, a standard nastier than what's happening now. Make them know that that line is a little vague, and it has a better chance of actually keeping the unneeded viciousness down. Reply • Back to Top |
| This needs to be cleared by the SEC/bama league office to make sure the SEC refs know who not to call it on. Reply • Back to Top |
| Here is an example of a hit that I think should be an ejection. It's not a particularly vicious hit but it seems the intent is clear to attack the exposed head. Kurt Coleman hit on Illinois running back Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Thats borderline. Nothing wrong with the hit to the head(the QB was dragging guys forward). But the QBs knee was actually down before he made the last surge forward although its really hard to tell if Coleman could see that. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Based on previous ejections this will only be worse- Ejected for a legal hit Reply • Back to Top |
| there really needs to be a yellow/red card system in football. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: It wouldn't help Reply • Back to Top • Refresh |
| Return to Board | ||
  Page 1 of 2  | ||
on 2/13 at 1:21 pm to 
on 2/13 at 1:21 pm to 
on 2/13 at 1:28 pm to 
on 2/13 at 1:31 pm to 
on 2/13 at 1:33 pm to 
on 2/13 at 1:49 pm to 
on 2/13 at 2:00 pm to 
on 2/13 at 3:30 pm to