View Single Post
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 07, 2012, 12:10pm
zm1283 zm1283 is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by michblue View Post
I was not given info as to the grounds of support. I was just told from a D1 official that the conference supported the call.
Them supporting it doesn't make it correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepinchad View Post
I concur. This was and should have been called an illegal block. If you watch the video, the offensive player made a choice. He could have blocked the guy dead in the belly button and a flag most likely wouldn't have been thrown. He decided to go a little high and then follow through with the arm. I can say that in real time, I would have flagged this.
You obviously don't know how football is really played. How is a D1 athlete running at full speed supposed to pull up so he can pinpoint exactly where he is supposed to hit the opponent? Since when is "going a little high" a penalty? You guys sound like baseball umpires who call balks because "It looked funny". The defensive player made a choice as well which was not watching what was going on around him. That's his own fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike L View Post
Rule 9-1-4. No player shall target and intiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

From what I've heard/seen on play tape reviews from my area powers that be (sometimes known as conference supervisors) is that this player in this situation is defenseless and the call would receive a "correct call" designation.
You can argue about their interpretation, you can say the rule doesn't state that, you can even whine about the direction the game is going, but unless you are one of those guys who decides what the officials on the field should be calling, I would suggest you should do what they instruct or consider joining the fans in the seats. It's clear to me at least that the decision has been made that these type of hits with a high potential for head injury are to be removed from the game.
And I would argue that the powers that be aren't interpreting the rule correctly, as this player was not defenseless. If anything he was inattentive for not having his head on a swivel and paid for it. The defender made the choice to not be watching for blockers and it was his fault he got ear-holed.
Reply With Quote