It still hasn't been supported by rule...imagine that.

In your opinion. In the opinion of those who determine what is supported by rule and what is not, 9-1-4 says it is and should be a foul. Realize that.

If you are saying a rule has been violated, you should reference the rule that was violated. I am still waiting for some explanation so that when I make this call I would be supported. I work for the same people that assign the Big Ten (Midwest Alliance) so I would like to hear their take on this issue. At least these guys have slow motion and different angles. We might get two angles and no slow motion other than what we use for Hudi or some other site that might be used for that game.

Peace

Just like the foul in the Cowboy game...

Coach: "What did my guy do wrong? He didn't hit him in the head or with his head?"
Me: "Well coach, it just looked bad - I had to flag it because it would look bad if I didn't."

Where is this game going...

late to the party
 

I agree with Rut, don't like the fact that there was a flag on the play. I disagree with Rut, in that it doesn't appear to be launching...When I watched the slow motion, it appeared the blocker did "launch" not in the classic sense of launching to someone's head, but he did extedn and appear to leave his feet...None of us are good enough to judge this full speed correctly all the time, that is why they give us philosophys to go by....by philosophy in my opinion this looks like a launch, couple this with the violence (which is just part of the game) and I understand why there is a flag....and since in my opinion the official used philosophy to make the call (yes just my opinion), if I were an evaluator, I would also support the call....the support would look like this, depending on how the foul was written up in the report...I can see why you made the call based on philosophy, however a no call here would have been supported as well....

The launch in itself is not a foul. It is a sign that a foul might be taking place. As was illustrated by Northwestern at Vanderbilt (2011) and the Big Ten apologized for an incorrect call on a "launch" foul that clearly did not involve helmet contact.

So we can split hairs if that was a launch, but the Big Ten did not support another call for that reason obviously a year ago. I am just wanting some evidence of why this was a good call. If they say that there was helmet contact I can live with their position. I am just saying that UNR has to be justified somehow other than, "We support the call."

Peace

Ummmm, was the 9-1-4 referrence not legible enough for you?

Did the Big Ten reference 9-1-4?

And it is debatable if he hit him in that the head and neck area. And it is very debatable if he was defenseless. Hard to call a player 5 yards or so behind the ball carrier. Oh well, then again you have to know the rule to know what they need to say to you to make you feel like this is the right call.

I can be a smarta$$ too ya know.

Peace