PDA

View Full Version : Terrible calls



Old Tiger
11-07-2011, 11:29 AM
yet again


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oymQ-8-gWE4#!

Emerson1
11-07-2011, 11:55 AM
From that refs view it probably looked helmet to helmet. That and you can obviously see him go stiff the second he gets hit so it looks like he is out for the count. It's always easy to get the right call with 8 different views and slow motion.

Go to 3:55. He explains the rule. If it's even questionable the ref is supposed to throw a flag.

NastySlot
11-07-2011, 12:13 PM
From that refs view it probably looked helmet to helmet. That and you can obviously see him go stiff the second he gets hit so it looks like he is out for the count. It's always easy to get the right call with 8 different views and slow motion.

Go to 3:55. He explains the rule. If it's even questionable the ref is supposed to throw a flag.


can't get the sound for the video here..........what is said about the rule?.........I didn't think it actually rule was helmet to helment....but isn't any contact to the head.

TexMike
11-07-2011, 12:55 PM
1 - It does not have to be helmet to helmet to be a foul. In the case of a receiver completing a catch, any deliberate blow to his head by any part of the defender is a foul. Not saying that happened here, just saying that is the rule.
2 - Major college officials are under tremendous pressure to make more of these high hit calls. That is why we are seeing so many called that turn out to not be to the head.
3 - I have seen several huge hits this year where the player apparently suffers a concussion yet film suggests there was no contact to the head. Is that possible (i.e. concussion without head being hit)?

Old Tiger
11-07-2011, 01:05 PM
1 - It does not have to be helmet to helmet to be a foul. In the case of a receiver completing a catch, any deliberate blow to his head by any part of the defender is a foul. Not saying that happened here, just saying that is the rule.
2 - Major college officials are under tremendous pressure to make more of these high hit calls. That is why we are seeing so many called that turn out to not be to the head.
3 - I have seen several huge hits this year where the player apparently suffers a concussion yet film suggests there was no contact to the head. Is that possible (i.e. concussion without head being hit)?Majority of the time it is the receivers fault they are hit high. Mainly by lowering their head for impact. I think the rule needs to be evaluated to limit the amount of yardage or to make it not a automatic first down. Especially if they are going to call everything like that.

TexMike
11-07-2011, 01:24 PM
Majority of the time it is the receivers fault they are hit high. Mainly by lowering their head for impact. I think the rule needs to be evaluated to limit the amount of yardage or to make it not a automatic first down. Especially if they are going to call everything like that.

The rules actually have many "when in question" statements. Ex: When in question if a block from behind is above or below the waist, we are to rule it is below which makes it a clip (15 yards) instead of a block in the back (10 yards)

For these high hits the rules say "When in question, it is a foul"

Tin Cup
11-07-2011, 01:27 PM
Offensive players can lead with their helmets and it's ok. Why is only an offensive player "defenseless"

TexMike
11-07-2011, 01:35 PM
Although they should not be allowed to, the only offensive players I have ever seen "allowed" to do so are runners. And the assumption is they are not lowering their head to make contact with it against an opponent (although we all know they do at times).

1st and goal
11-07-2011, 04:45 PM
Last night's non call against Ray Lewis hitting Heinz Ward.

'Necks 2013-14
11-07-2011, 04:52 PM
Offensive players can lead with their helmets and it's ok. Why is only an offensive player "defenseless"Exactly! And what about the hands to the mask that a ball carrier is allowed to get away with...always thought that was some bull mess too.

TexMike
11-07-2011, 04:57 PM
The rules specifically permit the runner to contact an opponent's facemask as long as he does not grab and turn

Saggy Aggie
11-07-2011, 05:06 PM
Last night's non call against Ray Lewis hitting Heinz Ward. didnt look nearly as bad as lot of other helmet to helmet hits which is why it didnt get called i think, but was clearly helmet to helmet contact and put Ward out.

'Necks 2013-14
11-07-2011, 05:08 PM
The rules specifically permit the runner to contact an opponent's facemask as long as he does not grab and turnStill sucks because a defensive player cannot!! Needs to go both ways IMHO.

TexMike
11-07-2011, 05:27 PM
The defender can also, but only against the runner

'Necks 2013-14
11-07-2011, 05:37 PM
The defender can also, but only against the runnerSoooo...the back can "grab but not twist" but the defender can just "place" his hand on the facemask? Seems like almost every time a defensive player even thinks about touching the mask it draws the laundry!! Would you not agree that there is a bias here?

'Necks 2013-14
11-07-2011, 09:49 PM
Ttt^^

TexMike
11-07-2011, 10:02 PM
Soooo...the back can "grab but not twist" but the defender can just "place" his hand on the facemask? Seems like almost every time a defensive player even thinks about touching the mask it draws the laundry!! Would you not agree that there is a bias here?

Bias? No. Inequity? Yes

'Necks 2013-14
11-07-2011, 10:42 PM
Bias? No. Inequity? YesYou are correct. That is a better definition than mine. But it remains an unfair rule that is slanted in the favor of the "O". Needs tweaking.

Dr Death
11-08-2011, 01:57 PM
Although they should not be allowed to, the only offensive players I have ever seen "allowed" to do so are runners. And the assumption is they are not lowering their head to make contact with it against an opponent (although we all know they do at times).

Don't you think wall punt returns ought to be watched closely. We have several teams in our area that would prefer to get a 10 yard clip and have 2-3 players tee off on the back of a players head.

TexMike
11-08-2011, 02:20 PM
It's a foul. Flag it. What's the problem?

Dr Death
11-08-2011, 02:56 PM
Of course a clip, but what about targeting the back and the helmet. Shouldnt that be a personal and possibly a flagrant?

TexMike
11-08-2011, 03:08 PM
that is a foul and depending on how "flagrant" it is, could be grounds for ejection.

Old Tiger
11-15-2011, 10:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O76d2yVcZaU