Prince out 3 to 4 weeks

#26
#26
He apparently suffered a broken jaw from that helmet-to-helmet hit (which the refs did not call) in the end zone when the refs called a safety that was not a safety. If you do not believe there was a helmet-to-helmet hit, look at the replay.

Why is it that both the refs and the broadcasters did not know the rule on a safety? The rule is this, as I understand it: if ANY part of the ball pierces the plane defined by the edge of the goal line NEXT to the end zone, that is the edge going out of the end zone, then there is NO safety.

And, as so many people get wrong, spotting the ball in football should not be based on where the knee touches the ground but rather on WHERE THE BALL IS WHEN THE KNEE TOUCHES THE GROUND.

Were the officials an SEC crew?

Kudos to Prince for toughing it out.

Sorry to hear the kid got hurt, he looks to have a bright future, and good luck to him and UCLA the rest of the way.

As far as the hit goes.


That is why they don't wear leather helmets anymore. That's part of football, he didn't get speared, or hit late. He has the ball, in the endzone, running with it. He has to defend himself. You think USC is gonna just push him to the ground, lightly?
 
#32
#32
Do you even realize how much that safety benefitted you guys? If that ball is ruled out of the end zone, we are bringing all our guys for the punt block and getting ball about 20 yards closer.

Although I haven't read any post-game comments on this, I am sure, sure, sure that Neuheisel would have called for UCLA to take a safety on 4th down instead of punting. But because the safety occurred on 3rd down, UT benefited in that it got the ball back with about 1:40 left. Had the safety occurred on 4th down instead of 3rd down, UT would only have had about 1:15 left, as UT had no more time outs left. So, at the time, UT definitely benefited from the safety call at least as far as time left in the game went.

Todd Blackledge mentioned this during the telecast.
 
#33
#33
Actually i think the rule is different for the ball coming out of the endzone than it is going in. Going in the ball just has to break the plane but coming out the whole ball has to be past the line or its a safety! I might be wrong, so if anybody can prove to me other wise then that play was a safety.

that's what they were saying on tv too
 
#38
#38
For it not to be a safety, the entire ball must cross the goal line, not just break the plain. In this case, that did not happen. Just the nose of the ball crossed.
 
#39
#39
He apparently suffered a broken jaw from that helmet-to-helmet hit (which the refs did not call) in the end zone when the refs called a safety that was not a safety. If you do not believe there was a helmet-to-helmet hit, look at the replay.

Pretty sure the helmet to helmet rule is only for defenseless receivers and not ball-carriers.
 
#41
#41
You, a bammer talkin about class. Im sure your stupid enough that I have to explain that to you.
 
#43
#43
We got a safety, he got a broken jaw

You get a win, we get a broken heart.......seems it worked in your favor regardless

I am not pissing or moaning and I am appreciative for the win, especially given the fact that we recovered 5 of our 6 fumbles.

It just bothers me when the refs don't seem to know the rules. I don't mind them blowing a play because in many cases the replay can correct that but when they don't apply the rules right there is no appeal to that.
 
#47
#47
I am not pissing or moaning and I am appreciative for the win, especially given the fact that we recovered 5 of our 6 fumbles.

It just bothers me when the refs don't seem to know the rules. I don't mind them blowing a play because in many cases the replay can correct that but when they don't apply the rules right there is no appeal to that.

and just exactly what rule did the refs not know?
 
#49
#49
He apparently suffered a broken jaw from that helmet-to-helmet hit (which the refs did not call) in the end zone when the refs called a safety that was not a safety. If you do not believe there was a helmet-to-helmet hit, look at the replay.

Why is it that both the refs and the broadcasters did not know the rule on a safety? The rule is this, as I understand it: if ANY part of the ball pierces the plane defined by the edge of the goal line NEXT to the end zone, that is the edge going out of the end zone, then there is NO safety.

i'm fairly certain u treat it as a "touchdown" for the defense, if any part of the ball is in the endzone it's a safety...i'm pretty confident about this, though i'm not 100% sure that's how it goes

And, as so many people get wrong, spotting the ball in football should not be based on where the knee touches the ground but rather on WHERE THE BALL IS WHEN THE KNEE TOUCHES THE GROUND.

idk where u get the idea that this is a problem throughout college football fan bases across the nation...idk if i've ever met anyone who thinks this

Were the officials an SEC crew?

Kudos to Prince for toughing it out.

i don't think u, or ur coach for that matter, realize how much better the safety was for u in that situation...what he should have done is run right up the middle and try to get across the goaline on 3rd, then take the safety on fourth down...ut had to score a TD to win in either situation...if they do this then they can take more time off the clock AND put us in worse field position...if they were sec officials then they were trying to help u if anything :dry:

i have applauded the way ucla fans have handled the win despite the constant belittling of their team and conference...it has been a good change of pace from sec foes

but u sir do not know football...this thread is quite unnecessary

enjoy the win and good luck to u guys the rest of the season...hope ur QB makes a full recovery
 
Advertisement



Back
Top