Started By
Message
re: New "Aaron Murray" rule protecting QBs
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:15 pm to Monticello
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:15 pm to Monticello
On second thought, I like that kicker rule. It could help our roid-head.
1
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:18 pm to Teague
quote:
I love it when some douche with 6 posts comes in here arguing something that was rehashed over and over again months ago when it happened. And, he's wrong to boot.
Wrong is an opinion. (Shoot, I don't even remember what he said or if I agreed with it)
And the fact that it was rehashed 6 months ago is immaterial. It has been brought up again. I mean...YOU are responding to the subject again, aren't you? Oh, I forgot. You have a LOT of posts, so that makes it ok.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:19 pm to DawgsLife
you're an idiot and you took what I said competley wrong...I was telling you that's how people are on the rant..they'll bring up your join date and post count a lot.....nothing gets by you.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:21 pm to NBamaAlum
quote:
What the frick.
Our 230 pound LB/kicker Cade Foster is about to wreak some havoc with this new rule on kickoffs. He can be running full blast toward the return man about to level him and if any opponent so much as glances his helmet it is a 15 yard penalty and ejection.
I see the merit in the QB exemption, but this kicker/punter exemption is ridiculous. This will be called more than the QB one because on a kickoff, you are not looking at jersey numbers to figure out who you can't hit....you are just hitting anyone running towards you.
This post was edited on 7/22/13 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:21 pm to Monticello
Actually you have taught me something. For that...Thanks! 
I didn't realize helmet to helmet was not in effect that year. (Hard to keep up with all the changes.
But, Unnecessary roughness covers a LOT of sins and can be at the discretion of the referee....so no need for the defenseless rules. I can somewhat see it in the case of receivers, but not in the Murray situation.
I didn't realize helmet to helmet was not in effect that year. (Hard to keep up with all the changes. But, Unnecessary roughness covers a LOT of sins and can be at the discretion of the referee....so no need for the defenseless rules. I can somewhat see it in the case of receivers, but not in the Murray situation.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:23 pm to thatdude1985
Well...obviously YOU are wrong. Because that obviously got by me!
I misunderstood. Sorry for the harrassment on my part.
I misunderstood. Sorry for the harrassment on my part.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:24 pm to DawgsLife
well aren't you sassy.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:26 pm to sarc
Stop taking cheap shots on a QB, problem solved ..
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:26 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I didn't realize helmet to helmet was not in effect that year. (Hard to keep up with all the changes.
Helmet to helmet was in effect but only on a defenseless player. For Murray to be defenseless in that play in 2012, the rule book says he would have to be "completely out of the play." I guess the "out of the play" argument is what UGA fans were arguing, but I agree with you.....they should have argued for simple unnecessary roughness.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:30 pm to NBamaAlum
And the gems keep coming. Here is another 2013 addition to the definition of "defenseless player":
2-27-14g - "a player who receives a blind-side block"
So now, unless the player is looking at you and you give him fair warning, you get ejected if your helmet touches his.
2-27-14g - "a player who receives a blind-side block"
So now, unless the player is looking at you and you give him fair warning, you get ejected if your helmet touches his.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:31 pm to thatdude1985
Yeeeeeah. I'm not such a bad guy. just an idiot!
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:33 pm to Monticello
Damn.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:33 pm to TigerBait2008
quote:
Stop taking cheap shots on a QB, problem solved ..
I can't wait until the first LSU player is ejected for an inadvertent hit to the helmet. You guys will be screaming how unfair the rule is, Birmingham bias, that would never happen to Alabama....etc, and then I am going to bump this thread and remind you how much LSU fans supported the new rule before it happened to them.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:34 pm to Monticello
Murray definitely wasn't "out of the play". The defender was tackled less than 10 yards from where Murray was hit. Also, whoever intercepted that ball would have been running right at Murray if he just followed the blocks.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:34 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Wrong is an opinion.
Um, no. Wrong is wrong. Not knowing the definition may be where you've messed up.
Secondly, one thing you should know about me is that I'm never wrong. I am always the opposite of wrong, which is known as "right".
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:34 pm to Monticello
And I agree with you. While I don't believe he was even trying to make a play...he was near enough to not be classified as "out of the play".
Unnecessary roughness would have been the only correct call, and even that would have been subjective. UGA fans see it as Unnecessary, and 'Bama fans see it as Completely Necessary"!
Unnecessary roughness would have been the only correct call, and even that would have been subjective. UGA fans see it as Unnecessary, and 'Bama fans see it as Completely Necessary"!
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:36 pm to Teague
Ok. Let me rephrase it. It is YOUR opinion that he was wrong. It is many other peoples opinion on here that he was right.
So.....are you saying that you are completely right and anyone that disagrees with you HAS to be wrong?
(Actually that is the way I feel, but what do I know?)
So.....are you saying that you are completely right and anyone that disagrees with you HAS to be wrong?
(Actually that is the way I feel, but what do I know?)
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:37 pm to Monticello
quote:
And the gems keep coming. Here is another 2013 addition to the definition of "defenseless player":
2-27-14g - "a player who receives a blind-side block"
That's fricking retarded. There will never be another PR or KR TD without someone getting ejected.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:42 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
Also, whoever intercepted that ball would have been running right at Murray if he just followed the blocks.
Actually...no. I just looked at it again. I mean, he was 7-8 yards away from the play, but the returner was heading for the sideline and Murray was walking/jogging toward the sideline.
All in all it doesn't really matter. The play happened, it wasn't called. Time to look towards 2013 and forget about that. Murray COULD have been hurt, but wasn't. He admitted he should have been paying closer attention. It's done, and in the greater scheme of things, really doesn't matter.
Posted on 7/22/13 at 12:48 pm to DawgsLife
There was more open field to the middle, if he waited for his blockers instead of running past them straight into the offensive players.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News