|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 12:59am
|
|||
|
|||
I am working around my server problems...and mirrored the football play on the web site...
For this week goto http://mysite.verizon.net/res0kkni/index.html to see the new play. The play is a punt and watching the blocks after the catch, there are two blocks that you have to determine if they are legal or not.. Sorry for the time it took to post a new play...I hope that it works ok... please email me if there are problems.
__________________
Check out and comment on football plays posted on the web... David http://mysite.verizon.net/res0kkni/footballvideo/ 
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 01:11am
|
|||
|
|||
|
if you are talking the 2 right after the returner caught the punt and then right before he was tackled I was say clean on both. The blocker looks to have gotten the side on both, especially the second one..
__________________
Jim Need an out, get an out. Need a run, balk it in.
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 08:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
BTW...David, I really appreciate the time you spend posting these plays for us. Keep them coming!
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 09:23am
|
|||
|
|||
Legal on both. I'm sure both probably will make the highlight film also.
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 09:47am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Reminds me of the block leveled by Sapp (I think) last year. Huge hit, player taken off field, coach and Sapp get into it. But it was legal, just as in this play.
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 12:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
ok here it is the dissenting opinion....I don't think the first one is legal....at full speed I thought it was a block in the back the second one was clearly legal...the first in slow motion is close, but considering the R player was behind the K, and only because K started to turn was it even close, I go with my original...illegal...hey discussions are no fun without a dissenting opinion...
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 12:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The first one looks in the back to me. The blow is in the back. The head may be to the side but the blow is to the back. The player who is blocked goes face down. There is a slight roll but he goes face down to the ground. A block from the side is not going to send the player face down. Guess you sorta had to be there.
Was there a flag on the first block?
__________________
Bill Boos
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 01:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with most that both blocks are legal. First one was close and you're probably going to hear some grief from K's coach, but it goes with the territory.
Shame how often these hits are judged to be IBBs at the HS level.
__________________
Bob M.
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 03:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm sure this was a tough call in fast motion. But the first block is clearly in the back if you slow it down. If you have to, copy the image and enlarge it - first contact is the back of K's right shoulder, and follow through is in the middle of the back. At no point does R touch K in the side or front.
However, I would not fault any official not flagging this. It is MUCH easier to look frame-by-frame than trying to make this decision live and full speed. PS - the 2nd block isn't even close to being in the back.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike
|
|
Tue Sep 09, 2003, 03:26pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
You can slow it down so much that it is going in reverse but it is still NOT a block in the back. The player's back is essentially to the camera as he angles towards the top of the screen to pursue. Had the block been in the back, it would have drive him even further towards the top of the screen. It does not. He is driven towards the goal line, (the left of the screen). NOT a block in the back.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
