Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:53 am to Wallacewade04
quote:
someone is melting over a call on special teams return
No. The issue is special treatment for Alabama by SEC officals that extends to them actually misreprenting the rules to favor Alabama and deflect attention from their corruption.
This post was edited on 10/24/16 at 10:00 am
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:56 am to elit4ce05
quote:
NOT defenseless..
this again? quote:
NOT crown (top)
quote:
What replay has to decipher
you might want to actually watch the play rather than focus on a still frame
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:56 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
No. The issue is special treatment for Alabama by SEC officals that extends to them actually misrepresenting the rules.
Based on that graphic - they had to throw off what the CBS crew was saying - by lying about how the rules read.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:57 am to WhiskeyPapa
It wasn't even reviewed.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:58 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
you might want to actually watch the play rather than focus on a still frame
Freeze frame is what provides clarity to any review.
Any fair review.
This post was edited on 10/24/16 at 9:59 am
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:00 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Any fair review.
Go back and watch they play at actual speed. That ref. had to make a split second decision.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:02 am to KyleOrtonsMustache
quote:
Just want to chime in and say, I'm sorry all of your schools are poor and can't afford to buy the refs, the SEC office, the TV commentators and the United States Government.
Finally some common sense brought to the discussion
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:03 am to 14&Counting
quote:
Go back and watch they play at actual speed. That ref. had to make a split second decision.
Completely irrelevant. They have the ability to go back and review a play for targeting even if it wasn't called on the field. See the call against A&M later in the game.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:04 am to 14&Counting
quote:
Go back and watch they play at actual speed. That ref. had to make a split second decision.
for sure, which is why they review it in the booth. its a hard call for a ref on a fast moving play. Especially with the outcome of the call for the player
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:05 am to Open Your Eyes
quote:
Completely irrelevant. They have the ability to go back and review a play for targeting even if it wasn't called on the field. See the call against A&M later in the game.
Yes....but the call on the field was non-targeting....so the question becomes did he intentionally lead or did the collision come in the course of a football play?
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:08 am to 14&Counting
quote:Intent now matters?
so the question becomes did he intentionally
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:09 am to 14&Counting
quote:
Yes....but the call on the field was non-targeting...
As was the call against the A&M player. Still completely irrelevant.
quote:
so the question becomes did he intentionally lead or did the collision come in the course of a football play?
No, it doesn't.
For one, intent is not part of the rule at all.
Secondly, EVERY other time there is even a question of whether it could be targeting, play is stopped and a review of the play is initiated. Except this time, for some strange reason.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:09 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
for sure, which is why they review it in the booth. its a hard call for a ref on a fast moving play. Especially with the outcome of the call for the player
Yes- but they have to have some convincing eveidence it was an intentional move to harm the player not just simply the fact that contact was made.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:10 am to 14&Counting
quote:
Yes- but they have to have some convincing eveidence it was an intentional
Oh, I get it. You're just an idiot.
This post was edited on 10/24/16 at 10:11 am
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:10 am to 14&Counting
quote:What the hell are you talking about?
but they have to have some convincing eveidence it was an intentional move
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:13 am to NYCAuburn
First off the play had no real impact on the game; Noil even came back to play. But lets be honest, if that play is not targeting, then they need to get rid of the rule. Launching yourself helmet first at a player with absolutely no intent to tackle with your shoulder is the type of play that the rule is designed to get rid of. That was much more egregious than the play the A&M player was ejected on (which was correctly called), which arguably did have an impact on the game.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:15 am to 14&Counting
quote:
quote:
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
NOT defenseless...NOT crown (top)
quote:
“What replay has to decipher, and use judgment if you will, that contact that then resulted to the head was it incidental or was it forcible,” Shaw said.
Nice job selecting a frame in the sequence after initial contact. From the frame you selected no one would ever know Noil's facemark was crushed in by the crown of Wilson's helmet.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:15 am to WhiskeyPapa
As soon as i saw this occur I knew A&M was boned
Posted on 10/24/16 at 10:15 am to 14&Counting
quote:
Yes- but they have to have some convincing eveidence it was an intentional move to harm the player not just simply the fact that contact was made.
I think you might be confusing intent and initiate here.
Leading with the helmet is enough
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News