Sugar Bowl Safety

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by wisref2

didn't see the play - but keep this mind. Was he trying to gain yardage? If you want the right to gain yards, you have to accept the responsibility of losing yardage or fumbling.

Originally Posted by Hooah30

Certainly the whistle doesn't make the play day... Just wondering why they wear them around their neck?

The top statement is the point. If he would have just gone down then the play would have not been a safety. But when players often try to fight for extra yardage and they get away from these kinds of tackles, you let the play continue. Now if the one tackler had brought him down I agree without a question this is not a safety. But the player broke away and had 2 or 3 other players ultimately tackle him. This is not youth ball, these are great athletes. How many great plays do we see on SportsCenter when we think a player is down and they run for a TD or make big yardage after the first contact? The player has to know where he is on the field and stop fighting for yards. A similar thing happen earlier in the game when it appeared an Arkansas player could have been stopped, but was fighting for more yards and had the ball stripped out of his hand. If you are stopped, go down. When you continue to fight for yards, you are responsible for what happens after that until you are ruled to be truly stopped.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The top statement is the point. If he would have just gone down then the play would have not been a safety. But when players often try to fight for extra yardage and they get away from these kinds of tackles, you let the play continue. Now if the one tackler had brought him down I agree without a question this is not a safety. But the player broke away and had 2 or 3 other players ultimately tackle him. This is not youth ball, these are great athletes. How many great plays do we see on SportsCenter when we think a player is down and they run for a TD or make big yardage after the first contact? The player has to know where he is on the field and stop fighting for yards. A similar thing happen earlier in the game when it appeared an Arkansas player could have been stopped, but was fighting for more yards and had the ball stripped out of his hand. If you are stopped, go down. When you continue to fight for yards, you are responsible for what happens after that until you are ruled to be truly stopped.

Peace

This can't be overstated: as the RB don't put yourself in this position and you don't have to worry about it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The top statement is the point. If he would have just gone down then the play would have not been a safety. But when players often try to fight for extra yardage and they get away from these kinds of tackles, you let the play continue. Now if the one tackler had brought him down I agree without a question this is not a safety. But the player broke away and had 2 or 3 other players ultimately tackle him. This is not youth ball, these are great athletes. How many great plays do we see on SportsCenter when we think a player is down and they run for a TD or make big yardage after the first contact? The player has to know where he is on the field and stop fighting for yards. A similar thing happen earlier in the game when it appeared an Arkansas player could have been stopped, but was fighting for more yards and had the ball stripped out of his hand. If you are stopped, go down. When you continue to fight for yards, you are responsible for what happens after that until you are ruled to be truly stopped.

Peace

I'm not sure anyone would've blinked at a loss of yardage if this happened at midfield. Why should the end zone be any different? If he broke the tackle (and he did), then I'll let him gain yards, but I'll also let him lose yards and/or fumble.

I like the window sill analogy, but I don't think it applies here since the tackle was broken.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm not sure anyone would've blinked at a loss of yardage if this happened at midfield. Why should the end zone be any different? If he broke the tackle (and he did), then I'll let him gain yards, but I'll also let him lose yards and/or fumble.

I like the window sill analogy, but I don't think it applies here since the tackle was broken.

I would have, especially after watching the slow motion replay they showed during the game. He didn't break the tackle, the defender still had him by the legs when the second group of defenders engaged him.

I think it was a defensible, but ultimately wrong, call (but as I said, I'm biased).

I also thought the wing hurt himself by conferring with the R. What possible information does the R have that affects the call on forward momentum? It looked like the wing was confused as to what happened.

[football-1]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I would have, especially after watching the slow motion replay they showed during the game. He didn't break the tackle, the defender still had him by the legs when the second group of defenders engaged him.
.

with new link - video.

you can clearly see he breaks the tackle 2:49. then 2nd tackle.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by football-1

with new link - video.

you can clearly see he breaks the tackle 2:49. then 2nd tackle.

Yeap, sure does. I'd only seen the reverse of this angle before.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by football-1

with new link - video.

you can clearly see he breaks the tackle 2:49. then 2nd tackle.

What's your point - the safety was the correct call?

How far back does a runner have to be pushed while being controlled by the defender before the whistle is blown? The point that the runner broke free 2-yards deep in the end zone is irrelevant. His forward progress was stopped at the 2-yard line.

Horrible, horrible call - and the LJ knew it. He had the play stopped at the 2-yard line and started to come in with his hand raised, taking no fewer than 8 steps toward the middle of the field before dropping his hand and acquiescing to the H and R.