It's a penalty based on the defenseless receiver rule, not "launching", not an "above the shoulder rule", but it was a defenseless receiver penalty by definition.
I have cited it before but here it is. Look at the part about concentrating on the ball. The receiver was obviously concentrating on the ball. This is probably my least favorite rule ever, but none the less it is a rule.
PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERSIn 2008, the committee introduced a...
Very well put! No matter what the game, if UNC had the missed PAT, the personal foul hit, the spike, etc.
Imagine if the scenario was flipped and a UNC guy laid that same hit and no foul was called, this board would be even more up in arms.
well it obviously wasn't helmet to helmet based on the fact that his shoulder pads hit first, therefore I am assuming that it was a defenseless receiver penalty because he actually was in violation of that rule. I didnt see a statement anywhere from the officials but just based on the fact that...
PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERSIn 2008, the committee introduced a separate rule prohibiting initiating contact with and targeting a defenseless opponent (Rule 9-1-3).
The following are situations in which defenseless players are susceptible to serious injury:
The quarterback moving down...
Does clean mean legal?
I watched this game with my buddy and his dad who just retired from officiating last year (interesting perspective to watch a game with a ref.). I am completly neutral in this. I am just a huge football fan. I went to a D2 school so I am not a UNC or UT fan. that...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.