re: i'm surprised SC doesn't think the penalty on the nussmeier hit wasn't a penalty

quote:

---

Read Article 4, Approved Ruling 9-1-4, Item X. for an example.

---

Here's what that says...

quote:

---

On a punt return, B44 launches at A66 from the blind side and drives his shoulder into him The force of the contact is at A66’s side below the shoulder RULING: Foul for blind-side block A66 is a defenseless player because B44 executes a blind-side block However, this is not a targeting foul because the forcible contact is not to the head/neck area

---

So, Again defenseless only applies to targeting. Per the TARGETING rule the player is defenseless because he meets one of the criteria listed in Article 14, specifically 14.g. A player who receives a blindside block. So in your example the penalty would be for the blindside block, but the player would not be guilty of targeting because it doesn't meet all the criteria. But being defenseless in this case has nothing to do with the blindside block itself,it would be a blindside block regardless. I this case blindside block it's simply one of the criteria used to determine if the player is defenseless and if targeting applies.

The thought process goes like this:

Step 1.) Is the player defenseless? Yes, because of Article 14.g
Step two 2) Is it targeting? No. because the forcible contact is not to the head/neck area. (ie the other elements of targeting don't apply).

Are you really that dense?

Again, I quoted the entire blindside block rule. NOWHERE does it mention that the player has to be defenseless. That applies to, and only to, targeting.

Your LSU education is showing..

In fact from Article 18....

quote:

---

Blind-Side Block—ARTICLE 18 Approved Ruling 9-1-18

B44 intercepts the pass of A12 at the B-20 and turns back up-field on the return

During the return, B21 approaches A88 at midfield from the blind side and blocks A88
(a) with extended hands;
(b) with a screen type block;
(c) by attacking with forcible contact with his shoulder into the chest of A88;
(d) by attacking with forcible contact with the shoulder into the head of A88 B44 returns the pass to the A-20

RULING:
(a) No foul
(b) No foul
(c) Personal Foul, blind-side block, 15-yard penalty from the spot of the foul
(d) Personal Foul, Blind-Side Block with Targeting, 15-yard penalty from the spot of the foul and B21 is disqualified

---

Reading that description and looking at this gif,



Which one of those scenarios best applies? You HAVE to settle on scenario A. (and also give you the evidence you've been pestering DawginSC for.)

You're wrong on this one man, let it go and accept the gift the refs gave you.

That is a textbook personal foul in todays game. The defender has to know better.

I do not agree I think it is a lame call but they are calling that 10/10 times.

He didn’t hit him hard or anything …. He is allowed to block him…. Problem is he didn’t even need to do it . I don’t think it’s a blindside block he hit him in his upper left shoulder . It’s not the players fault the qb wasn’t looking his way . His hit wasn’t from behind or from the side .

quote:

---

it was a vicious hit

---

Bruh

quote:

---

Clearly was not a penalty.

---

it's the epitome of blind side block.

quote:

---

and nuss wasn't looking

---

That's on Nuss. Just because he's not used to getting blocked doesn't exempt him from understanding "head on a swivel" when he is going to make a tackle.
USC blocker got hands in front. welcome to football