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
#226
#226
volinbham said:
Thanks :hi: Davie said it was roughing the kicker which off course would be during the play and declined to accept the FG
Click to expand...

there's a chance both actually occurred (haven't watched a replay)

so that whole thing might have played out as roughing the kicker (declined), Gerald Williams throws his helmet off after the play (accepted)

don't know whether the former actually happened/ was called or not
 
#227
#227
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 being said...



the penalty was not given for helmet to helmet contact people need to stop saying that. The penalty was assed for hitting defenseless receiver.

the rule states that you can not hit a receiver while in the process of catching the ball( which he clearly was). This is a STUPID rule, and it does not maintain the idea of "football" but unfortunately this is the rule and should have been assed a penalty as he was.
 
#230
#230
05_never_again said:
What???
Click to expand...

PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERS—In 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 the line of scrimmage who has handed or pitched the ball to a teammate, and then makes no attempt to participate further in the play;
• The kicker who is in the act of kicking the ball, or who has not had a reasonable length of time to regain his balance after the kick;
• The passer who is in the act of throwing the ball, or who has not had a reasonable length of time to participate in the play again after releasing the ball;
• The pass receiver whose concentration is on the ball;
• The pass receiver who has clearly relaxed when the pass is no longer catchable;
• The kick receiver whose attention is on the downward flight of the ball; • The kick receiver who has just touched the ball; • The player who has relaxed once the ball has become dead; and • The player who is obviously out of the play.
 
#231
#231
espn announcer on another game said the rule was just "defender can't lead with his head"

Commented about a Nebraska player who did it twice to Locker when he ran and slid, missed call each time (the first b/c another player came over top and obscured the refs view....that one took Locker out of the game for a bit...not sure how long)
 
#232
#232
TrueOrange said:
espn announcer on another game said the rule was just "defender can't lead with his head"

Commented about a Nebraska player who did it twice to Locker when he ran and slid, missed call each time (the first b/c another player came over top and obscured the refs view....that one took Locker out of the game for a bit...not sure how long)
Click to expand...

they did not throw the flag for leading with his head it was thrown for the defenseless receiver rule.
 
#234
#234
formercollegeAce4 said:
PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERS—In 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 the line of scrimmage who has handed or pitched the ball to a teammate, and then makes no attempt to participate further in the play;
• The kicker who is in the act of kicking the ball, or who has not had a reasonable length of time to regain his balance after the kick;
• The passer who is in the act of throwing the ball, or who has not had a reasonable length of time to participate in the play again after releasing the ball;
• The pass receiver whose concentration is on the ball;
• The pass receiver who has clearly relaxed when the pass is no longer catchable;
• The kick receiver whose attention is on the downward flight of the ball; • The kick receiver who has just touched the ball; • The player who has relaxed once the ball has become dead; and • The player who is obviously out of the play.
Click to expand...

Ah, within the context of the "defenseless receiver" BS that was recently instituted.

The way you said it it sounded like you were saying that a defender cannot attempt to break up a pass by initiating contact.
 
#235
#235
kptvol said:
In similar fashion, it would be great if you'd limit yourself to a children's Bama forum, where you can share the company of people with comparable intellects.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:
That was a good one. VN needs that forum badly.:hi:
 
#236
#236
05_never_again said:
Ah, within the context of the "defenseless receiver" BS that was recently instituted.

The way you said it it sounded like you were saying that a defender cannot attempt to break up a pass by initiating contact.
Click to expand...

No, no of course they can, however he did not make an attempt at the ball
(stupid rule I know)
 
#240
#240
That shiz was squeeky clean. Shoulder to the back to separate ball from receiver. No helmet to helmet what-so-ever. Don't be vaginas.
 
#241
#241
ORANGE & WHITE said:
That shiz was squeeky clean. Shoulder to the back to separate ball from receiver. No helmet to helmet what-so-ever. Don't be vaginas.
Click to expand...

His helmet also hit the UNC players helmet at the same time his shoulder hit his back. He hit him kind of sideways.
 
#242
#242
formercollegeAce4 said:
defenseless receiver is a personal foul penalty
Click to expand...

thank you i know that. so is helmet to helmet, late hit, roughing the passer, etc.

i'm asking you, please (said politely), to show me something that said that the personal foul called in this instance was specifically the "defenseless receiver" personal foul
 
#245
#245
TrueOrange said:
another SEC forum brought up the idea of what he did being more or less "spearing" discuss
Click to expand...

It's BS. JJ did not hit the receiver with the crown of his helmet.

The actual blow was delivered with the shoulder, with the side of his helmet coming into contact with the receiver's back as he came in for the hit.

So there's several interpretations of why this was illegal, it seems...

1 - Spearing
2 - Led with his head
3- Hit a defenseless receiver
 
#246
#246
isn't spearing a "called with intention" penalty - rather than just final outcome? I can't recall a major incident of it (being called that) past when I played in high school though
 
#247
#247
TrueOrange said:
isn't spearing a "called with intention" penalty - rather than just final outcome? I can't recall a major incident of it (being called that) past when I played in high school though
Click to expand...

With the way they are calling these penalties, I don't think any of these personal fouls, leading with the helmet or otherwise, are being called with intention.

That's really a shame, because the solution to this issue is for officials precisely to call these penalties with intention.

Above all, this "defenseless receiver" horse**** has to go. They are taking a perfectly clean but "devastating" hit designed to make a defensive play out of the game. What is the defender supposed to do otherwise?
 
#248
#248
05_never_again said:
With the way they are calling these penalties, I don't think any of these personal fouls, leading with the helmet or otherwise, are being called with intention.

That's really a shame, because the solution to this issue is for officials precisely to call these penalties with intention.

Above all, this "defenseless receiver" horse**** has to go. They are taking a perfectly clean but "devastating" hit designed to make a defensive play out of the game. What is the defender supposed to do otherwise?
Click to expand...

I think that part's supposed to be designed as more of a "don't cheapshot people when they're on the ground / don't have the ball".

There's really know reason to helmet an already down receiver or one who doesn't even have the ball (two of the instances i've seen it called in)
 
#249
#249
TrueOrange said:
I think that part's supposed to be designed as more of a "don't cheapshot people when they're on the ground / don't have the ball".
Click to expand...

With the enforcement of the rule that I've seen, I don't think that's how it's being interpreted.

It's being interpreted and enforced as that you cannot hit a receiver when he has his arms away from his body in the attempt of making a catch. You cannot hit a receiver right as he's making the catch to break the pass up; apparently, if you cannot get your hand in there to bat the ball away, you have to let him catch the ball and get into a position where he is no longer "defenseless," and then you can tackle him. It is an absolute pussy rule.

IMO, it's a continuation of the pampering QBs have received over the years.
 
#250
#250
05_never_again said:
With the enforcement of the rule that I've seen, I don't think that's how it's being interpreted.

It's being interpreted and enforced as that you cannot hit a receiver when he has his arms away from his body in the attempt of making a catch. You cannot hit a receiver right as he's making the catch to break the pass up; apparently, if you cannot get your hand in there to bat the ball away, you have to let him catch the ball and get into a position where he is no longer "defenseless," and then you can tackle him. It is an absolute pussy rule.

IMO, it's a continuation of the pampering QBs have received over the years.
Click to expand...

that's pretty much Pass Interference isn't it? Or am I misreading it and that's not hitting him before the ball gets there?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top