![]() |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Indecision may or may not be my problem |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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...
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
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 officials lament, or the coaches excuses as it were: "I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you" |
|
|||
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Indecision may or may not be my problem |
|
|||
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) Last edited by JRutledge; Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:02pm. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AFC Championship - was that a TD? | canuckrefguy | Football | 38 | Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:00pm |
ACC championship | eyezen | Basketball | 20 | Wed Mar 18, 2009 08:29am |
Block at the end puts team in championship game | Mark Padgett | General / Off-Topic | 0 | Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:39am |
Div II Championship | canuckrefguy | Basketball | 13 | Sun Mar 25, 2007 08:53am |
difference between cut block and chop block | ase | Football | 7 | Mon Nov 29, 2004 11:23am |