Started By
Message

re: That Ray hit was Quinton Dial-esque,

Posted on 12/8/14 at 8:45 pm to
Posted by Kcoyote
Member since Jan 2012
12050 posts
Posted on 12/8/14 at 8:45 pm to
quote:

I'd argue that under the rules back then he could have still easily been ejected for it.


I wouldn't. Today's rules sure. Although he was blocking. It still would get him ejected for targeting more than likely.

Back then, there definitely wouldn't have been an ejection. Probably why there wasn't an ejection.
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
96255 posts
Posted on 12/8/14 at 8:47 pm to
quote:

Although he was blocking.
blocking is one of the most common targeting calls.
Posted by bmy
Nashville
Member since Oct 2007
48203 posts
Posted on 12/8/14 at 9:59 pm to
quote:


I wouldn't. Today's rules sure. Although he was blocking. It still would get him ejected for targeting more than likely.

Back then, there definitely wouldn't have been an ejection. Probably why there wasn't an ejection.


These is from the 2011-2012 Rulebook.. Rule 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 applied back when Dial crushed Murrays face.

RULING:
Foul by B79 for targeting his opponent and initiating contact with the top of his helmet. Ejection for a flagrant foul.

Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area
of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When
in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6).

He could have been ejected for using the crown of his helmet or for targeting the head/neck area of a player who was "out of the play".
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 10:01 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter