Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/21/24 at 11:38 am to Cockeee Don
quote:
It was not called a blindside block by the officials. No explanation was given.
Ref audio wasn’t working, so how do you know? We know they called a 15 yard personal foul and we know it was an illegal blindside block due to the forcible contact.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 11:43 am to Marktastic86
Literally the only people who think the SEC officiating was good for the 20 years that Saban was at Alabama are retarded Alabama fans.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 11:51 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
Literally the only people who think the SEC officiating was good for the 20 years that Saban was at Alabama are retarded Alabama fans.
The reimaging companies that rent out billboards loved you guys during the 20 years Saban was at Bama
Posted on 12/21/24 at 11:51 am to Chip82
quote:I don’t believe that’s a reviewable call
Its too bad that it wasn't reviewed. It would have been a TD.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:00 pm to llfshoals
quote:
don’t believe that’s a reviewable call
I think you are right. Only Texas can get a review on a non reviewable play.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:03 pm to BFANLC
quote:
The reimaging companies that rent out billboards loved you guys
You're not very smart, are you?
Of course Lamar Advertizing loves LSU fans, seeing as it is one of the largest billboard advertising companies in the country, is headquartered in Baton Rouge, and whose president is a big LSU fan. He doesn't have to rent out billboards to LSU fans, because he is one. He can put whatever the frick he wants on his signs.
Lamar Advertising
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:06 pm to djsdawg
If I’m not mistaken a big one in the Miami/Cal game was
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:13 pm to llfshoals
quote:
I’m not mistaken a big one in the Miami/Cal game was
I think so, but The overturn in the VT game was really bad.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:16 pm to djsdawg
quote:Thst was the most blatant. If you take 10 minutes to try and figure out if it was a catch or not, then it’s not definitive enough to overturn the call on the field.
I think so, but The overturn in the VT game was really bad.
It is just enough time for the replay official to get a call to tell him which call he’d better make though
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:18 pm to Marktastic86
quote:
SEC officials went from being some of the best in the country the past couple of decades
SEC Officials have always been either terrible or corrupt. You only thought they were good because Bama got the calls.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:33 pm to BFANLC
quote:
Forgot about the td called back because the ref didn't know the rules.
The tripping tackle by Milroe?
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:48 pm to PappyGarcia
You’re right I remember the bad calls. Remember when your nose tackle block a punt and landed on top of the LSU deep snapper which is illegal. And the Ref’s never threw the flag. Remember that?
Posted on 12/21/24 at 1:14 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Rule 9-1-18-1:
No player shall deliver a blind side block by attacking an opponent with forcible contact.
That game is turning into a dog in a hurry. I figured this would happen when they screamed it was necessary to expand to 12 teams. Anyway.
I get what you are saying, but you have to include the whole rule.
(a) with extended hands;
This was used within the rule to give an explanation of what is NOT considered an illegal hit. The Gamecock defensive player clearly had his hands extended.
Look. We bot know we can strain at gnats on both sides and extend this disagreement, but that gets nobody anywhere. We can debate definitions etc. but why?
I am fine with agreeing to disagree. I understand where you are coming from and I fine with it. I just think the extended hands part clears the SC player.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 1:58 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
get what you are saying, but you have to include the whole rule.
I posted the full rule.
quote:
a) with extended hands;
Was not in the rule. This is in an example in the interpretation section.
This post was edited on 12/21/24 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:30 pm to djsdawg
quote:
I posted the full rule.
But you forgot to give the extenuating circumstances provided within the rule which clarifies.
quote:
Was not in the rule. This is in an example in the interpretation section.
But is in the rule book in an effort to clarify the rule, which is very important. If it were not there, your feelings would be correct. but with the clarification it shows you were incorrect. Had you been a referee in that game you would have made an incorrect call...unless you took into account the clarification within the rule book.
You do believe that interpreting the rules correctly is important, don't you?
This post was edited on 12/21/24 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:35 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
But you forgot to give the extenuating circumstances provided within the rule which clarifies.
That’s ultimately irrelevant. It’s the rule itself that matters.
The interpretation is intended to set boundaries for the spirit of the rule, in this case to protect defenseless players for forcible hits.
The key word is forcible, and that hit was forcible for certain.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:40 pm to djsdawg
quote:
That’s ultimately irrelevant. It’s the rule itself that matters.
Of course it is relevant. First you have to define what a blindside block is. According to the rule the South Carolina player did a legal block, since he led with his hands. Here is the entire rule:
College: 9-1-18
SECTION 1. Personal Fouls
Blind-Side Block
ARTICLE 18. No player shall deliver a blind-side block by attacking an opponent with forcible contact. (Exceptions: (1) the runner; (2) a receiver in the act of attempting to make a catch.) Note: In addition, if this action meets all the elements of targeting, it is a blind-slide block with targeting (Rule 9-1-3 and 9-1-4).
Approved Ruling 9-1-18 I. 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.
It clearly says as long as he has extended his hands it is not a rule infraction.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:45 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Of course it is relevant. First you have to define what a blindside block is. According to the rule the South Carolina player did a legal block, since he led with his hands. Here is the entire rule:
You are reading too much into that wording. It’s all about the spirit of the rule. Not all blocks with hands are forcible. That one was.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:47 pm to djsdawg
quote:
You are reading too much into that wording.
Dude. It spells it out for you. It clearly says if he has extended hands it is no foul. It right there.
quote:
It’s all about the spirit of the rule.
And the clarification is to make sure the spirit of the rule is followed.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News