Pics to shut up annoying UNC fans

#76
#76
Here is the official rule on launching in college football.

(ruling 9-1-3 II):

"Receiver A83 has just leaped and received a forward pass. As A83 is about to regain his balance, B45 launches and drives into A83 above the shoulder area with his helmet or shoulder.

RULING: Foul by B45 for targeting and initiating contact with a defenseless opponent above the shoulders. Ejection for a flagrant foul."
 
#77
#77
heelz23 said:
Here is the official rule on launching in college football.

(ruling 9-1-3 II):

"Receiver A83 has just leaped and received a forward pass. As A83 is about to regain his balance, B45 launches and drives into A83 above the shoulder area with his helmet or shoulder.

RULING: Foul by B45 for targeting and initiating contact with a defenseless opponent above the shoulders. Ejection for a flagrant foul."
Click to expand...

In other words - the hit was legal since he didn't target or initiate contact with the opponent above the shoulder with either his helmet or shoulder.
 
#78
#78
The push from the UNC player was hardly flag worthy which is why it received no flag. No harm was done at all on that play. No advantage gained. As for UNC fans or broadcasters saying it was a late hit, well, they are idiots.
 
#79
#79
heelz23 said:
Here is the official rule on launching in college football.

(ruling 9-1-3 II):

"Receiver A83 has just leaped and received a forward pass. As A83 is about to regain his balance, B45 launches and drives into A83 above the shoulder area with his helmet or shoulder.

RULING: Foul by B45 for targeting and initiating contact with a defenseless
opponent above the shoulders. Ejection for a
flagrant foul."
Click to expand...

Nobody wants your thoughts around here!! Take your girly colors and GTFO!!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#81
#81
2edy35v.jpg
 
#82
#82
that's not even a very good picture like the one at the beginning of the thread - that picture is after his shoulder impact the WRs back and makes his helmet snap back and the helmet collide after the initial collision.
 
#83
#83
I would be careful about that approach. They're likely to send back a picture of the final scoreboard.
 
#85
#85
formercollegeAce4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then i guess that i can stop telling the kids that i coach to catch the ball because you are going to get hit anyway. I'll just start telling them not to worry about it. Go ahead and drop it because if you get hit then it's a penalty. I've been freaking amazed the last few days of the posters here like formercollegeace that don't have a clue about the simple rules of football. I'm stunned by the ignorance. Timing hits and blowing up receivers as soon as the ball is in their hands is what made being a defensive back fun for me. There wasn't then and there's not now a rule against that as long as it's not helmet to helmet.
 
#87
#87
Bassmanbruno said:
that's not even a very good picture like the one at the beginning of the thread - that picture is after his shoulder impact the WRs back and makes his helmet snap back and the helmet collide after the initial collision.
Click to expand...

Just putting it out there as an example that shows it's really hard to determine a play when you're looking at one-off screen grabs. Most officials will say, if something LOOKS like penalty, it is a penalty. Did it look like a penalty when you saw it live? It did to me. Did it look like the UNC receiver dropped the ball because of said penalty? Not when I saw it LIVE but on review, I'd say a definite maybe which is not good enough to overturn.

Personally, I wouldn't complain about that play. I'd focus on the play before the field goal. That's where errors occurred.
 
#88
#88
notverycrucial said:
Just putting it out there as an example that shows it's really hard to determine a play when you're looking at one-off screen grabs. Most officials will say, if something LOOKS like penalty, it is a penalty. Did it look like a penalty when you saw it live? It did to me. Did it look like the UNC receiver dropped the ball because of said penalty? Not when I saw it LIVE but on review, I'd say a definite maybe which is not good enough to overturn.

Personally, I wouldn't complain about that play. I'd focus on the play before the field goal. That's where errors occurred.
Click to expand...

Didn't look like a penalty live either. The penalty was called because the entire UNC sideline started calling for the penalty after they saw their receiver drop the ball. The official got caught up in the moment and called the penalty. Had the play been on the other sideline the only result would have been a incomplete pass.
 
#89
#89
thagodfather said:
I've been freaking amazed the last few days of the posters here don't have a clue about the simple rules of football. I'm stunned by the ignorance. Timing hits and blowing up receivers as soon as the ball is in their hands is what made being a defensive back fun for me. There wasn't then and there's not now a rule against that as long as it's not helmet to helmet.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "as soon as the ball was in his hands" though, which is why the refs viewed it differently than a normal hit. He was late, just a tad late, but late enough that it didn't look right. Hence the flag.
 
#90
#90
notverycrucial said:
It wasn't "as soon as the ball was in his hands" though, which is why the refs viewed it differently than a normal hit. He was late, just a tad late, but late enough that it didn't look right. Hence the flag.
Click to expand...

Sad part about that hit is that he didn't bring his arms and at least attempt to wrap up or strip the ball. It would have looked a lot better and probably had a better chance of knocking the ball out. He just blew him up, and the ref flagged it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top