Started By
Message
re: New "Aaron Murray" rule protecting QBs
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:45 am to DawgsLife
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:45 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Murray wasn't attempting a tackle. He was nowhere near the play.
quote:
That said, you did read that Murray took responsibility for getting hit and not paying attention, right?
So Murray admitted it was his own fault for running towards the ball carrier and was therefore not a defenseless player. Thanks.
1
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:45 am to NBamaAlum
quote:
Athens PD is opening an investigation concerning elder abuse.
pushing a wheelchair on a suspended license
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:45 am to DawgsLife
quote:
DawgsLife
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:46 am to NYCAuburn
Poss. an elder with the intent to help is 25 to life in Jawga.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:47 am to msutiger
quote:
Murray was nowhere near the play
He was at most 10 yards from the play and jogging towards it. If he didn't want any of it then he should've watched it happen from the middle of the field. Instead he jogged, lazily I might add, toward the ball carrier without paying attention. I think it should've been 15 yards and I think Murray's a tough son of a bitch but Dial had every right to throw a block. Just maybe a little lower.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:47 am to dallasga6
quote:
ACC officiating supervisor just casually mentioned he would've ejected Clowney for Michigan hit, which was actually a clean hit. Good lord. 11:45 AM - 22 Jul 2013
See this is what I am so worried about. A 6'6'' guy tackling a 5'9'' HB face to face is almost always going to make some helmet contact, especially on a play that quick. That ACC official is stupid too considering the fact that the HB was not a defenseless player according to the guidelines/examples given in the NCAA rule book.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:48 am to SneakyWaff1es
and lades and gents, that's the thread.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:48 am to Monticello
Ummm...you might wanna take another good look at that video. "Chasing down"?
He couldna caught a turtle at the speed he was moving. He was barely shuffling his feet.
He couldna caught a turtle at the speed he was moving. He was barely shuffling his feet.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:49 am to SpartyGator
bullshite rule, why should the QB get special protection when he's just a regular defender on the field at that point.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:50 am to Teague
Love it when people make an issue of the number of posts someone has....like haivng 9000 posts somehow makes yours more worthy? Seriously? I don't know how many worthless posts I have seen people make...but if it is their 10,000th it must be good. Wow. 
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:51 am to WDE24
quote:
bullshite.
How so? If someone is running towards the ball carrier, are they not actively engaged in the play? "Clearly out of the play" is pretty strong language in the rule book and I would think you would need to just about be on the ground or standing still to be "clearly out of the play."
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:51 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Agreed. 15 yard penalty would have been sufficient.
That's all I really wanted
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:52 am to DawgsLife
welcome to the rant. if you don't like people calling out your post count or join date..you don't belong.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:52 am to DawginNCalhoun
quote:
DawginNCalhoun
Alter. Nice edit, what's your other login?
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:53 am to gatorhata9
Ejection is amazingly harsh for one hit...esp at the speed these kids play.
These old men who officiate the games really need to tune into the fact of how fast the game is played.
These old men who officiate the games really need to tune into the fact of how fast the game is played.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:53 am to magildachunks
quote:
Warner and Favre, the two players that were shown over and over again being hit by the Saints as dirty hits, even admitted the hits being shown were not dirty.
My argument is that the hits are considered dirty because of the motive.
The physical hit isn't dirty, the motive behind it is dirty. Which, in turn, makes the hit dirty.
Its really a pointless discussion at this point though.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:54 am to Monticello
You must not be able to see the image of Jake Holland I posted in that reply.
As for the ejection rule and targeting, it is my understanding that the ejection and targeting call is reviewable and that refs have been instructed to throw a flag even when they are in doubt. If that is the way it is going to be called and given the severity of the penalty and the effect of a missed call, they need to reverse the standard for review on those plays to give the player the benefit of the doubt and not giving the original call the benefit.
As for the ejection rule and targeting, it is my understanding that the ejection and targeting call is reviewable and that refs have been instructed to throw a flag even when they are in doubt. If that is the way it is going to be called and given the severity of the penalty and the effect of a missed call, they need to reverse the standard for review on those plays to give the player the benefit of the doubt and not giving the original call the benefit.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:55 am to TexasTiger1185
not really.....my time machine is almost ready.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:55 am to DawginNCalhoun
Would Dial have "objected" as you state?
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:56 am to SneakyWaff1es
quote:
I think it should've been 15 yards
quote:
but Dial had every right to throw a block
Those two completely contradict each other. There is no NCAA rule against "hitting a guy really hard and you feel bad for him."
quote:
Just maybe a little lower.
The NCAA rule book did not outlaw hits to the helmet while blocking in 2012. It now does, but only for QBs on change of possession and for defenseless players "clearly out of the play."
Page 5 of 11
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News