Was Jackson's hit clean?

Did Janzen Jackson show all out effort to help win or did he make a "thuggish" play?

  • Total voters
    0
#154
#154
Wow how lame the game of football has become. From the bs fines in the NFL to the refs in both games today determining the outcome of the game, the game getting more and more sissified. What's next? No contact? Flag football? F that, this isn't soccer. Players know the risks they take when they put on the pads. It's a choice to play for the love of the game, but what has this game become? A buncha crybaby b itches. I don't care what anybody says, Jackson's hit was a good clean hit. He led with his shoulder. What was he supposed to do? Let the dude run by him like he did in the first quarter? Hell no! He laid the hammer down and knocked the ball loose like he should've. I think Jackson needs to work on his open field tackling, but I'd be glad to have him on my team any day. I really hope that one day real smack-mouthed defensive football makes a resurgence, but with this nanny-state we live in I won't hold my breath.

And on a side note- I hate you Daniel Lincoln. I'm glad you're graduating. Who misses an extra point with the game on the line? Special teams- The Vols' Achilles Heel.

I said this as nicely as I could, but I'm soooooooooooooo pissed right now.
 
#158
#158
all4vol said:
Is anybody searching for the actual rule dealing with JJ penalty?
Click to expand...

The rule is you cannot hit a player with the crown of your helmet or hit a "defenseless" player "above the shoulder area".

There is no such thing as a rule against "launching" or "leaving your feet"
 
#159
#159
_vol said:
Helmet to helmet is not written in the rule. Helmet to helmet contact is just a point of concentration that has been put forward by officiating crews this year. A crack-down of sorts of something they deemed to be a glaring and negative trend in modern football.

In this case, JJ did not make contact with his helmet nor did he make contact with the helmet of the UNC player. Helmet to helmet is a moot point here. If the ref thought he saw helmet to helmet contact on that play then he is the one that needs to get his head checked.
Click to expand...

I know; that's exactly what I'm saying. Helmet-to-helmet is an issue but is irrelevant to the JJ hit, because it wasn't helmet-to-helmet. It was shoulder to the back and attracted attention because he approached the receiver with a lot of momentum and "launched" himself.

The "glaring and negative trend in modern football" is the pansification of the game. These personal foul penalties for the hand of a defensive player attempting to bat down a pass striking the shoulder or head of a QB are ABSOLUTE BULL****.

The personal foul penalties for defensive players fighting through a block from an offensive lineman then falling into the legs of a QB are ABSOLUTE BULL****.

The personal foul penalties for landing a "devastating hit" right into the chest of a "defenseless player" who has exposed his body going over the middle are ABSOLUTE BULL****.

Football is a fast, physical game where players have to process information and make a physical move within fractions of a second. Injuries are going to happen. Football was not and should not be made to eliminate all risk of injury. If you did, you can't have the game of football as we know it and love it.

The only thing I understand having "supplemental discipline" (a favorite NHL term of mine) for is a malicious hit made with the intent to injure another player (an intentional helmet-to-helmet hit, taking out the knees of a player engaged in a block, etc.). Those measures are currently in place and perfectly reasonable. Unnecessary roughness penalties for late hits or hits out of bounds are perfectly fine.

However, "launching" your shoulder into the back of another player attempting to make a catch is not malicious. In fact, the player making the hit assumes more risk himself than the player getting hit does.
 
Last edited:
#160
#160
orangetanker11 said:
Not exclusively. He sprung himself, intentionally, towards a defenseless receiver. Watch it again and you will see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Yep, he did, and hit him squarely in the back with his shoulder/side of his helmet.

That was a vicious, but clean, hit.

Football at both the college and pro level is being pussified.
 
#161
#161
We had to quit playing dodge ball and kick ball last year at the school because someone got hurt. Someone fell down last week during a game of tag and we had to stop that now. Then we sat in class and texted each other during recess. One kid got blisters and all our phones were taken. What next?
 
#162
#162
05_never_again said:
I know; that's exactly what I'm saying. Helmet-to-helmet is an issue but is irrelevant to the JJ hit, because it wasn't helmet-to-helmet. It was shoulder to the back and attracted attention because he approached the receiver with a lot of momentum and "launched" himself.

The "glaring and negative trend in modern football" is the pansification of the game. These personal foul penalties for the hand of a defensive player attempting to bat down a pass striking the shoulder or head of a QB are ABSOLUTE BULL****.

The personal foul penalties for defensive players fighting through a block from an offensive lineman then falling into the legs of a QB are ABSOLUTE BULL****.

The personal foul penalties for landing a "devastating hit" right into the chest of a "defenseless player" who has exposed his body going over the middle are ABSOLUTE BULL****.

Football is a fast, physical game where players have to process information and make a physical move within fractions of a second. Injuries are going to happen. Football was not and should not be made to eliminate all risk of injury. If you did, you can't have the game of football as we know it and love it.

The only thing I understand having "supplemental discipline" (a favorite NHL term of mine) for is a malicious hit made with the intent to injure another player (an intentional helmet-to-helmet hit, taking out the knees of a player engaged in a block, etc.). Unnecessary roughness penalties for late hits or hits out of bounds are perfectly fine.

However, "launching" your shoulder into the back of another player attempting to make a catch is not malicious. In fact, the player making the hit assumes more risk himself than the player getting hit does.
Click to expand...

I think that we are in complete agreement.
 
#163
#163
s1216 said:
The rule is you cannot hit a player with the crown of your helmet or hit a "defenseless" player "above the shoulder area".

There is no such thing as a rule against "launching" or "leaving your feet"
Click to expand...

It would seem that the NC player was defenseless but like I said before hit or no hit they still would have had the ball inside our territory the only question then would be how would it finish?
 
#165
#165
all4vol said:
It would seem that the NC player was defenseless but like I said before hit or no hit they still would have had the ball inside our territory the only question then would be how would it finish?
Click to expand...

I does not say you cannot hit a "defenseless" player. It actually says you can make helmet to helmet contact, just not with a defenseless player and not with the crown of your helmet.
 
#166
#166
Just wait until a good QB gets hurt on a blindside sack.

It really pains he to say this, but I see a point in time where hits such as those are outlawed.
 
#167
#167
05_never_again said:
Yep, he did, and hit him squarely in the back with his shoulder/side of his helmet.

That was a vicious, but clean, hit.

Football at both the college and pro level is being pussified.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the penalty, but the only reason it was called was because JJ launched into a defenseless receiver.
 
Last edited:
#168
#168
orangetanker11 said:
I don't agree with the penalty, but the only reason it was called was because JJ launched into a defenseless receiver.
Click to expand...

I agree that's why the penalty was called. What I'm saying is the hit in question shouldn't have been penalized.

As others have noted, "launching" yourself into any player, defenseless or otherwise, doesn't automatically merit a personal foul.

I'm all for punishing hits made with malicious intent, whether or not the player launches himself or not.
 
#169
#169
brando1083 said:
Needs to lose his spot just because of that bone head play. Make his a$$ work to earn it back all off season to show him how stupid of a play that was.
Click to expand...

It is apparent you were listening to the game on TV because anyone who saw the play (the refs didn't because they proved over and over they were blind), it was not close to a bad hit. He did not go helmet to helmet. He clearly went shoulder pad to shoulder pad. The ball was loose when the guy hit one his head first out of bounds. He had touched the ground with one foot before he had control of the ball; then lost the ball and his head hit out of bounds and he gathered the ball back in while on the ground. Terrible call.
 
#170
#170
05_never_again said:
:good!:

Somebody answer this question about helmet-to-helmet hits:

What football player is intentionally going to perform a helmet-to-helmet hit? Do people forget the risk of injury that the hitter is assuming himself? Actually, that is an irrelevant question in this instance, because JJ's hit wasn't helmet-to-helmet anyway.

I don't think there was anything malicious about that hit at all. I would think that his idea was the create a bone-jarring collision that would knock the ball loose and/or force him out of bounds.

I don't understand what else he was supposed to do. JJ came up from his safety position with a huge head of steam toward the receiver. Is he supposed to hold up, let him make the catch, then shove him out of bounds?

There needs to be a lot more discretion shown by these officials with these hits. Hits with malicious intent are obvious, and I'm all for nailing people who perform those.

Football is a physical sport, but these rules and referees expect defensive players to stop instinctual decision made in fractions of a second. If you're worried about getting injured on one of these hits, then don't play football.
Click to expand...

The ones who think that when players get a concussion, they are just "tired and want to take a quick nap on the field"

(James Harrison)



also it tends to be the one with the momentum does the damage and comes away pretty unscathed (meanwhile the other guy's skull - and really brain - receive the transference of the hit plus the momentum and have to hold it/ are damaged by it)

Janzen though is supposed to make a clean hit rather than going for the sportscenter highlight big hit. We've seen this already in the NFL and the players have shown multiple times that the difference between "big hit bobby" and form tackling isnt at all any sort of terrible delay that causes touchdowns or broken coverage big plays and missed tackles. (and he could have just as easily made a big hit in the body or back or just even a form tackle; watch the replay he launches into the guy on purpose - like a torpedo, head first, towards the guy's head and even takes steps to set it up - rather than make the tackle; there's nothing instinctive or split-second about that)


You're right. Football is a physical game. The problem is concussions aren't just physical: they're brain damage. They result in all sorts of psychological problems later in life from depression to attempted suicides to becoming vegetables and so on (to name a few). Heck, there are players from the 80s and 70s who wish they didn't have "scene-missing" appear when they try to remember their past games (even from points where they weren't knocked out). It's not at all like a leg, arm, or muscle of "just rest it and it'll go back to old form," it doesn't just get better (in fact, the results many times become worse as time passes). head injuries aren't just dealing with the physical, they are dealing with damage to the brain that - psychologically, personality-wise, whatever - can damage or even destroy the person.

IF it were just a skull injury it'd be one thing; but it's not, it's a whole lot more and potentially a whole lot worse.

But back to Jackson, he had time, angle, everything to make a legal hit; he wouldn't have stopped like some unused Madden player and let the guy pass by....but he instead wanted to play "let's light this sucker up" and because of how he chose to do it, it was a penalty.
 
#171
#171
jim43 said:
It is apparent you were listening to the game on TV because anyone who saw the play (the refs didn't because they proved over and over they were blind), it was not close to a bad hit. He did not go helmet to helmet. He clearly went shoulder pad to shoulder pad. The ball was loose when the guy hit one his head first out of bounds. He had touched the ground with one foot before he had control of the ball; then lost the ball and his head hit out of bounds and he gathered the ball back in while on the ground. Terrible call.
Click to expand...

penalty was that he launched himself head first at the guy aiming towards his head; you don't get a benefit of "you tried to do something illegal but you just miss so ok" with those kinds of things.

The pass could have been ruled incomplete and the penalty would have just been assessed from the previous line of scrimmage
 
#172
#172
s1216 said:
I does not say you cannot hit a "defenseless" player. It actually says you can make helmet to helmet contact, just not with a defenseless player and not with the crown of your helmet.
Click to expand...

regardless they still have the ball inside our territory....
 
#173
#173
05_never_again said:
Just wait until a good QB gets hurt on a blindside sack.

It really pains he to say this, but I see a point in time where hits such as those are outlawed.
Click to expand...

he gets brain-damage, then you'll have your desired outcome

.....hard to see that being unique to a blindside hit though; guy would either have to slam the QB's head into the ground or helmet 2 helmet
 
#175
#175
He launched deliberately - I called it real time. End of discussion. You want the rules changed? Totally different conversation. You want the rules enforced consistently and across the board? This was NOT your game!
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top