re: New "Aaron Murray" rule protecting QBs

I'm not real crazy about all the new rules, either. Personally it could have been covered by unnecessary roughness. When you are on the field you have precious little time to run down a laundry list of situations and then decide whether you can hit someone or not.

I feel it was a bad hit on Murray because it was away from the play, he was not making a true effort to get to the play. There were other Georgia players moving faster toward the play that Dial could have tried to block. Guessing..the defensive coordinator made an issue that Murray was going to beat Alabama all week, trying to get his guys pumped up for the game, and it was payback time for Alabama's D. I've seen it happen before. Nothing wrong with it...but (In my opinion) Dial was wrong. Should have been 15 yard unnecessary roughness penalty and play resumed.

It was such frickin bullshite that Dial didnt get suspended in some capacity for that hit vs Murray. Honestly, it is just comical.

Trae Elston gets suspended earlier in the year for a hit that didnt even garner a flag in the game and they dont do shite to Dial who was ABSOLUTELY targeting.

I would love to hear Slive and Co.'s explantation why Dial was not punished in any way for headhunting that prisspot in the GA Dome.

Reading is fundamental, Monty. Read more carefully. Murray was NOT running to the ball. Look at the video again.....he MIGHT have been classified as a slow jog. He was NOT going to make a tackle. Murray said he should have been paying attention...and he should have. Any time you are on the field you head HAS to be on a swivel.

I agree. It can VERY easily get out of hand.

And how does a post count make the content any more or less worthy, pray tell?

"Oh, Look! I have 9,000 posts, so when I say something it really mean something!"

"Mine is more important, because I put "I agree" on a post 6,000 times! Wow. You really have low standards, don't you?

I agree!

(I've got to get my post numbers up so when I actually say something some fo these guys will respect what I say!)

quote:

---

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.

---

Absolutely. At least go into the review booth with the presumption that it was not electable targeting. Instead any "contact above the shoulders" on a "defenseless player" is a presumed ejection unless it can be overcome on replay by "conclusive evidence". That is 3 phrases open to a lot of interpretation that a referee is going to have to make on every targeting decision. It's going to open them up to a ton of criticism and I think they will be extremely reluctant to overturn any targeting ejection. It will be much easier to eject them all than explain why one was ejected and the other was overturned.

Also I am unsure about what they are looking for in the replay booth. Are they simply trying to confirm if the hit was above the shoulders or are they making a judgment call on whether the above shoulder hit was intentional or avoidable, etc?

Just found this gem as well: The new rule applies to kickers and punters as well throughout the entire length of the play. So basically don't touch a QB on a change of possession or a kicker or punter, ever, or risk ejection.

quote:

---

The definition of a “defenseless player” has expanded as well in regards to this foul. Quarterbacks will remain defenseless even after they throw an interception and possession changes hands. Kickers and punters, once they have kicked the ball, will be considered defenseless for the rest of that down.

---

quote:

---

Dial should have been ejected and suspended, but yet he remained in the game.

---

Yeah let's eject players every time they smoke QBs. Don't think so buddy.

quote:

---

Personally it could have been covered by unnecessary roughness.

---

I could possibly agree with that. But the hit itself was not in violation of any rule at the time as it relates to targeting a defenseless player.