Started By
Message
locked post

Since when do you start calling penalties on intent?

Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:32 am
Posted by lsutigerfan1976
Slidell, LA
Member since Nov 2009
2358 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:32 am
I admit that call was a crappy call last night. He barely grazed the wide receiver. Yet somehow, the intent was there? Is that like Miles, with having the want to hurt someone or do something? I personally think it was a makeup call, for not calling the roughing the passer a little earlier. And yes i did not search if already posted.
This post was edited on 10/14/12 at 10:34 am
Posted by EST
Investigating
Member since Oct 2003
18290 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:32 am to
SEC officiating.

SEC football meets Minority Report.
This post was edited on 10/14/12 at 10:33 am
Posted by tigerjunior
Member since Aug 2009
2353 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:34 am to
That call made no sense
Posted by Guava Jelly
Bawston
Member since Jul 2009
11960 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:37 am to
There is no rule, to my knowledge, which states that if a player misses a tackle, but had INTENT to lead with his helmet, it's a personal foul.
As I said in another post, if we apply rules to intent, we should be able to apply it to the fair catch no call. ODB INTENDED to call a fair catch.
Posted by TorNation
Sulphur, LA
Member since Aug 2008
2899 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:37 am to
If you admit he grazed him plus they were out of bounds plus he was leading with his helmet it was just too obvious. I think had he just bumped him or grazed him w/o leading with his helmet no penalty would have been called.
Posted by stapuffmarshy
lower 9
Member since Apr 2010
17507 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:38 am to
it was a joke and did seem like a make up call


intent, wtf
Posted by lsufanva
sandston virginia
Member since Aug 2009
13628 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:38 am to
It's a bullshite call. If intent is the reason for a flag then there should be flags on every play. Intent allows for a huge canvas for calls. Just call what happens, not intent. Since when are officials mind readers or quasipsychiatrists? Another sign of the pussification of football.
Posted by Tiger Authority
Member since Jul 2007
29476 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:39 am to
quote:

If you admit he grazed him plus they were out of bounds plus he was leading with his helmet it was just too obvious. I think had he just bumped him or grazed him w/o leading with his helmet no penalty would have been called.



This makes no sense.
Posted by omegaman66
greenwell springs
Member since Oct 2007
27333 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:39 am to
Announcers are ALWAYS wrong. The call had nothing to do with intent.
Posted by Canuck Tiger
Member since Sep 2010
1809 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:39 am to
I think you could move the chains on a lot of dropped passes too. The WRs intent was to catch them!
Posted by Grooler
USA
Member since Dec 2009
488 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:39 am to
That call was terrible and could have changed the outcome of the game.
Posted by lsutigerfan1976
Slidell, LA
Member since Nov 2009
2358 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:40 am to
quote:

If you admit he grazed him plus they were out of bounds plus he was leading with his helmet it was just too obvious. I think had he just bumped him or grazed him w/o leading with his helmet no penalty would have been called.


The point is they should have let that slide. Think if your hand grazes the other person's helmet. Are referees going to interpret that as you meant to drag someone down by the facemask? It is not the refs job to interpret intent. It is their job to say, did they do something wrong? That is it. Not what your intentions were.
This post was edited on 10/14/12 at 10:43 am
Posted by graychef
Member since Jun 2008
30524 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:41 am to
quote:

That call was terrible
Posted by STEVED00
Member since May 2007
23163 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:42 am to
quote:

Since when do you start calling penalties on intent?


Are people assuming this was the reasoning for the call just bc Herbtreit said it on air??
Posted by Tiger Authority
Member since Jul 2007
29476 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:44 am to
quote:

Are people assuming this was the reasoning for the call just bc Herbtreit said it on air??



What other explanation is there?
Posted by tigerprl
DFW
Member since Dec 2010
1278 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:45 am to
how about negative intent.
I didn't intend to be offside.
or I din't intend to move and have a flase start.
or i didn't intend to chop block, it just happened.
Kind of getting like our judges and judical system with make the law on the fly.
Posted by STEVED00
Member since May 2007
23163 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:45 am to
quote:

What other explanation is there?


Official just made a bad call.
Posted by Mike da Tigah
Bravo Romeo Lima Alpha
Member since Feb 2005
61846 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:46 am to
This whole leading with your helmet thing is a slippery slope. Of course you lead with your helmet with tackling someone. It's at the top ouf your body? Should he lead with his feet?

It's a contact sport. I understand using the helmet as a weapon, but what I saw last night didn't look like an intent to do anything but hit the guy out of bounds by extening yourself in preparation of contact. Like most things, it's gone from a reasonable rule to stop malicious damage to a player to a witch hunt.

Posted by Tiger Authority
Member since Jul 2007
29476 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:46 am to
quote:

Official just made a bad call.




Well that's the right answer.
Posted by TheDoc
doc is no more
Member since Dec 2005
99297 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 10:50 am to
Happened to Loston last year when he launched over a player and never made contact

Was flagged for it
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram