Started By
Message
Illegal wedge aside, the Taters might have a point here....
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:25 am
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:25 am
Dawgs on Top
7
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:26 am to DawgCountry
You're allowed to block someone in the back if they intentionally turn their back to you
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:28 am to Crowknowsbest
I'm just messing. Its a good read over there today 
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:35 am to DawgCountry
Link? 
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:42 am to GoldenDawg
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:57 am to DawgCountry
So we whupped 'em by 17 instead of 24....at the end of the day we still whupped 'em....whiny bastards!!!
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:01 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
You're allowed to block someone in the back if they intentionally turn their back to you
A good number of people over there seem to realize this. Only a few are bitching about it.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:17 am to DawgCountry
Bennett didn't fumble. Calls/non-calls usually even out over the course of the season.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:23 am to Cobb Dawg
Agree. That was not a fumble. Not sure how that got over turned.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:25 am to DawgCountry
I saw that when I rewatched the game. The Clemson defender turned right in front of our guy and we brushed him but the blocker threw his hands up immediately afterward. It was a good non-call.
Seriously, are those idiots slo-mo'ing every play and looking for missed calls? I wonder if they're flagging any of those where our guys were held all night?
Pathetic.
Seriously, are those idiots slo-mo'ing every play and looking for missed calls? I wonder if they're flagging any of those where our guys were held all night?
Pathetic.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:27 am to retooc
Remind them we could have scored again at the end of the game with our second team line and 4th string RB in...
Also, an illegal wedge is three players shoulder to shoulder on a free kick.
Can someone with a non banned user name post that?
Also, an illegal wedge is three players shoulder to shoulder on a free kick.
Can someone with a non banned user name post that?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:32 am to DawgCountry
They're saying it was holding, and if all you saw was the still image you might think it was. But if you watch the video, the Clemson player wasn't held.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:43 am to DawgCountry
Let's grant that it is a block in the back. Does anybody think that kicker was stopping a full speed Todd Gurley even without the block?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:48 am to Dawg in Beaumont
quote:
Let's grant that it is a block in the back. Does anybody think that kicker was stopping a full speed Todd Gurley even without the block?
I won't grant any such thing. The kicker was facing/running the other direction and when Gurley cut he turned right in front of our guy and then dove forward. If the kicker didn't reverse direction our guys block would've been perfect.
If we were holding is was a pretty poor job.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:04 am to SquatchDawg
Oh, I agree, I'm just saying it's a moot point. If our blocker had been on the sidelines playing dominos that kicker wasn't slowing down Gurley a bit.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:22 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
You're allowed to block someone in the back if they intentionally turn their back to you
But you aren't allowed to grab both of their arms from behind.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:24 am to davesdawgs
If you watch the replay, it's so minuscule that it was a good no call. That is literally the one split second that it looks bad. Anyone complaining about a hold or block in the back on that call is out their mind.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:38 am to gatorhata9
I think Gurley pushed the blocker into him...
Ref couldn't call it an illegal wedge cause they didn't have anyone to block. If a block hadda been made when the 3 blockers were all within 2yds of each other it woulda been called....
Ref couldn't call it an illegal wedge cause they didn't have anyone to block. If a block hadda been made when the 3 blockers were all within 2yds of each other it woulda been called....
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:50 am to Dawg in Beaumont
quote:
Let's grant that it is a block in the back.
But it wasn't. If the defender spins away from the blocker in order to avoid being blocked, he's free game.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:51 am to dallasga6
quote:
I think Gurley pushed the blocker into him
I honestly think the blocker used the kicker to keep from falling over after the shove from Gurley. Nothing to see here
Page 1 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News