- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:04 pm to Powerman
quote:
The QB and the WR are responsible for putting the WR in a defenseless position
So the defense gets punished for their ineptitude by not being allowed to make a play on the ball. That makes sense.
pretty much
you're incentivizing throwing high (so the DB can't make a play on the ball to dislodge it)
if you throw it right, it will be a catch or personal foul
in turn, this will leave more WRs being left to get fricking DEMOLISHED across the middle
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:09 pm to Powerman
I suppose.
But with all the recent evidence of concussions, they are going to take greater and greater measures to try and reduce blows to the head.
From an entertainment standpoint it kinda blows, but it makes sense from a safety/liability standpoint.
But with all the recent evidence of concussions, they are going to take greater and greater measures to try and reduce blows to the head.
From an entertainment standpoint it kinda blows, but it makes sense from a safety/liability standpoint.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
The problem is the rule itself, but being that it is a rule it was a good call when seeing the first time at full speed. I thought it was an easy flag based on the rule until I saw the replay.
I'd rather a flag be thrown based on the rules of the game versus not flagging somebody for a blatant foul(remember Auburn game a few yrs ago), which happened on a no-call that literally gave SC a TD.
I'd rather a flag be thrown based on the rules of the game versus not flagging somebody for a blatant foul(remember Auburn game a few yrs ago), which happened on a no-call that literally gave SC a TD.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:14 pm to DP40
quote:
I'd rather a flag be thrown based on the rules of the game versus not flagging somebody for a blatant foul(remember Auburn game a few yrs ago), which happened on a no-call that literally gave SC a TD.
The blown holding call ended up being meaningless
SC was getting destroyed by the refs the entire game. If you couldn't see this, you didn't watch the game. It's pretty simple
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:17 pm to Placebeaux
It's funny, 3 pages and not one person can define the rule he violated and yet the concensus is that it was an easy call. 
He did not leave his feet
Didn't head hunt, helmet to helmet - was going for the body and the receiver fell to his knees.
Hit shoulder to shoulder
The ball was just passing off and through so it's not defenseless - the play was over sort of thing.
If that hit is so easy to call then everyone on here is saying the rule is:
"You can't hit a receiver at all to separate the ball unless you hit his middle torso or legs like he's a QB protected class."
I don't think there's a rule that says that.
He did not leave his feet
Didn't head hunt, helmet to helmet - was going for the body and the receiver fell to his knees.
Hit shoulder to shoulder
The ball was just passing off and through so it's not defenseless - the play was over sort of thing.
If that hit is so easy to call then everyone on here is saying the rule is:
"You can't hit a receiver at all to separate the ball unless you hit his middle torso or legs like he's a QB protected class."
I don't think there's a rule that says that.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i think it was much more shoulder to shoulder, but the WR ducked his head down
Yeah, but that's impossible to see real time.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:24 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
It's funny, 3 pages and not one person can define the rule he violated and yet the concensus is that it was an easy call
Leading w/ the helmet...helmet to helmet hit. I thought it was an easy call real speed, then I saw he hit him w/ the shoulder.
To usc fan dude, get real, the non-holding call gave SC 7 points and w/o those 7 points no OT. Regardless, the better team won on an off night.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:27 pm to DP40
quote:
Leading w/ the helmet...helmet to helmet hit.
If you're saying that's the rule that was called; it's a bad call.
Surely there must be another rule he violated?
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:28 pm to Zamoro10
i don't know the exact citation, but he violated the rule where you can't hit a "defenseless" WR (which means, i believe, in the process of catching the ball) above the shoulders
that definition of defenseless may be the NFL's definition, but they're similar
that definition of defenseless may be the NFL's definition, but they're similar
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:29 pm to OBUDan
quote:
But with all the recent evidence of concussions, they are going to take greater and greater measures to try and reduce blows to the head.
But these plays still occur. They just occur with a penalty.
And as slow is pointing out this can almost be used as an offensive strategy. Lob it up and hang your WR out to dry. If he doesn't catch it you have a really good change of getting a penalty and an automatic first down.
Could in theory lead to MORE injuries because the offense can employ this tactic to get cheap first downs
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:30 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
If you're saying that's the rule that was called; it's a bad call.
In real speed it looked like a good call. It's easy to say it's a bad call now.
The non-holding call was much. much worse and it ain't close.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
(which means, i believe, in the process of catching the ball) above the shoulders
No way that's the definition. If it is strap some flags on the players and call it a league.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:36 pm to DP40
quote:
The non-holding call was much. much worse and it ain't close.
Huh? This thread is about a rule in CFB - good/bad rules...bad call? We are all well acquainted with how holding is called.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:42 pm to Placebeaux
quote:
No way that's the definition.
it's either the definition in the NFL or college. one of the leagues uses that definition
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:44 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Huh? This thread is about a rule in CFB - good/bad rules...bad call? We are all well acquainted with how holding is called.
You said it was a bad call, not a bad rule.
And any football fan is aware of helmet to helmet hits are personal fouls as well as just going at the head of a receiver. It's not hard to understand the rule and understand why it was called in real speed.
The call didn't screw SC as the OP suggests, but the holding call did screw Stanford.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 12:52 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder
quote:
Defenseless receiver- A receiver who is in the act of catching the ball, or if the pass receiver has already relaxed and shows no indication that he can still catch the pass cannot be targeted.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 1:07 pm to DP40
I think it needs to be reviewed. No way a ref can make that call accurately every time in real speed. In slow motion you can clearly see usc got screwed.
Posted on 10/30/11 at 1:07 pm to floridatigah
quote:
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder
you bolded shoulder, from the defensive player
show me where you can't hit the shoulder of the defenseless WR
Posted on 10/30/11 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
His facemask is a part of his head, not shoulder.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News