Block in BIG 10 Championship

[cmathews]

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....

[JRutledge]

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