Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:31 am to CrimsonBoz
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:31 am to lsupride87
quote:
So would the crown of a helmet to the collar bone count?
That is the failure of the rule. The language gives to much latitude to the refs to interpret. I saw the reply on this link which seem to be the best out there.
LINK
Fitz was defenseless in the situation so that meets a criteria. It appears he left his feet after the ball is released and if the ref determines he launched that just adds to the refs opinion. In the first view it shows his helmet was hit via contact either by White's helmet or his hand. The 2nd and 3rd look more like the hand then helmet and he made contact around the neck, which still meets the definition of the rule but that Fitz was turning his head as White was making contact.
So again by the definition of the law and latitude given to the refs the call was made within the letter of the law according to the language. But the failure is on intent. I do not see intent but that is subjective whether in the language or not because in my opinion in so many including this hit weighs when the ref determines if it is and the player is ejected and why I think an appeal you should be in place.
I understand this is about player safety and dealing with time constraints of the game have no issue with the ruling on the field and the ejection but do believe it should not affect the next game and he should be allowed to play. If there was an appeal in place I believe he would be playing the whole game against us.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:33 am to RB10
No the Wilson hit. Where is that link? I’ve already watched and made comment on the White hit.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:35 am to TideWarrior
quote:
It appears he left his feet after the ball is released and if the ref determines he launched that just adds to the refs opinion.
He never left his feet. He was running.
quote:
In the first view it shows his helmet was hit via contact either by White's helmet or his hand. The 2nd and 3rd look more like the hand then helmet and he made contact around the neck, which still meets the definition of the rule but that Fitz was turning his head as White was making contact.
White made contact with Fitz in the same exact spot that Wilson made contact with UT's QB. High on the chest.
quote:
So again by the definition of the law and latitude given to the refs the call was made within the letter of the law according to the language.
Repeating this doesn't make it correct. For the last time, there is no forcible contact to Fitzgerald's neck or head.
quote:
But the failure is on intent. I do not see intent but that is subjective whether in the language or not because in my opinion in so many including this hit weighs when the ref determines if it is and the player is ejected and why I think an appeal you should be in place.
Wrong. The failure was the refs and replay officals determining that there was forcible (there's that word again) contact to the head or neck.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:41 am to BowlJackson
quote:
Osama Bin Laden on the 9/11 hijackers "They just bumped the planes into the buildings"
You’re the stupidest Auburn poster on this board.
At least MrsGarrison is just a troll. You’re the real deal.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:41 am to RB10
The part you left out is defenseless, do you think he was?
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:43 am to CrimsonBoz
quote:
The part you left out is defenseless, do you think he was?
So Fitz was defenseless after just throwing the ball but the UT QB wasn't?
I'd like to see you explain that one as well.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:44 am to RB10
quote:
Wrong. The failure was the refs and replay officals determining that there was forcible (there's that word again) contact to the head or neck.
Which I agree but see it as the intent based on their subjective opinion was it forcible and I agree it was not. That is the issue I have with it and we seem to agree on that part. And why I think there needs to be an appeal process because that language of using "forcible" is subjective.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:44 am to Jrv2damac
quote:
Jrv2damac
You are the most triggered fan on this board
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:47 am to RB10
Stop comparing the two I’m trying to break down one of these first. Do you think he was defenseless by rule?
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:49 am to TideWarrior
quote:
Which I agree but see it as the intent based on their subjective opinion was it forcible and I agree it was not. That is the issue I have with it and we seem to agree on that part. And why I think there needs to be an appeal process because that language of using "forcible" is subjective.
I'm not trying to argue, just pointing this out again:
Wilson
White
Anyone who looks at these two hits and says one is targeting and the other isn't is either a massive homer or trolling. Neither is targeting and neither call should ever be upheld.
How the replay officials did so to White is beyond me.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:49 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
You are the most triggered fan on this board
And you’re just another Arkansas fan trying to salvage his existence with trolling and awful analysis
A common sight here honestly
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:50 am to CrimsonBoz
quote:
Stop comparing the two I’m trying to break down one of these first. Do you think he was defenseless by rule?
I'm not going to stop comparing something that shows your hypocrisy. Either both are targeting or neither is.
It's that simple.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:50 am to Jrv2damac
quote:
And you’re just another Arkansas fan trying to salvage his existence with trolling and awful analysis
A common sight here honestly
Yep ^ still mad...
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:51 am to momentoftruth87
Yes, cycle through your SEC rant catch phrase Rolodex
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:52 am to BowlJackson
quote:
Devin White also launched himself into Fitzgerald
No he did not.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:52 am to Jrv2damac
quote:
Yes, cycle through your SEC rant catch phrase Rolodex
Just doing what LSU fans do
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:53 am to RB10
quote:
RB10
I'm sure you have posted a bunch on the subject but do you think it just comes down to bad refs making a terrible call or do you believe there is something more to it?
Posted on 10/22/18 at 10:55 am to momentoftruth87
I can call a poster stupid for using 9/11 as a comparison to an argument about a football personal foul without being mad
But keep making good use of your break time at Kroger’s
But keep making good use of your break time at Kroger’s
Page 7 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News