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
#401
#401
sjt18 said:
Yeah, I think JJ had to lay out to get anything on him at all. IMO, if he doesn't dive at him... the guy would have made the catch clean and been able to turn the corner.

FWIW, this wasn't JJ's worst play in the game even if it was an illegal hit. He was in position but failed to make the tackle on the long TD run in the first half. That play was truly horrible.
Click to expand...

Jackson's effort on that td play was terrible.
 
#402
#402
UGADawg4Life said:
As an impartial fan, I thought the refs got it right. Because the ball was shielded, you couldn't really tell if he had complete possession. But you have to give the receiver the benefit of the doubt, especially since the UT defender made an illegal hit. Think about it this way, what if the uniforms had changed and it was a UT receiver.
Click to expand...

The legality of the hit is questionable. JJ's upper back was actually the 1st part of his body to hit him... and he didn't hit him in the head. Is diving to make a tackle now illegal?

The control of the ball is not questionable. In none of the 3 angles shown did he have control of the ball. In both of the angles that actually showed the ball when he hit the ground... the ball was still loose. He did NOT gain control of the ball until he was on the ground out of bounds. That equals: NO CATCH.

And no... it wouldn't have been a catch if the uniforms were switched.

To that extent, I think the officials could have and maybe should have warned UT about hand gestures, salutes, et al... and thrown a flag if they didn't stop. I don't have a problem with the actions themselves but ignoring them was not consistent with the way other teams have been flagged.
 
#403
#403
If they don't change the rule then the new thing when time is running out will be to commit a penalty to stop the clock. Stupid that this has not been addressed since it is a known problem.

However if they don't change the rule then D's need to start anticipating and jumping the count then blocking kicks in similar situations until they actually time one just right.
 
#404
#404
illegal hit. plain and simple. it looked nice but he should know the rules.
 
#406
#406
Volfan8282 said:
Do you know the rules?
Click to expand...

Obviously I do. It was called a penalty. Do you know the rules? Seems you should learn them. You cannot launch youreself at a defensless receiver. It was called the way it was supposed to be.
 
#407
#407
No, it was a launch and spear and set NC up in field goal position.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#409
#409
Wylo said:
Obviously I do. It was called a penalty. Do you know the rules? Seems you should learn them. You cannot launch youreself at a defensless receiver. It was called the way it was supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Go look in the rule book. There is no "launching rule."
 
#411
#411
Wylo said:
Obviously I do. It was called a penalty. Do you know the rules? Seems you should learn them. You cannot launch youreself at a defensless receiver. It was called the way it was supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Haha oh well if those refs called it, then it must have been spot on. They were so money the rest of the night. My apologies.

Go look up the rule Einstein.
 
#412
#412
Volfan8282 said:
Haha oh well if those refs called it, then it must have been spot on. They were so money the rest of the night. My apologies.

Go look up the rule Einstein.
Click to expand...
That play is one of those plays that depend on the officiating crew. Not every crew is the same. I can see it not being a penalty, and I can see it being a penalty. It all depends on the officials' interpretation of the rule.
 
#413
#413
orangetanker11 said:
You can't be serious.
Click to expand...

Look at the picture.

2010_20december_2030_2022_2017_2030_medium.jpeg
 
#414
#414
Wylo said:
Obviously I do. It was called a penalty. Do you know the rules? Seems you should learn them. You cannot launch youreself at a defensless receiver. It was called the way it was supposed to be.
Click to expand...

But you can launch yourself at a receiver with the ball in his hands.
 
#415
#415
orangetanker11 said:
That play is one of those plays that depend on the officiating crew. Not every crew is the same. I can see it not being a penalty, and I can see it being a penalty. It all depends on the officials' interpretation of the rule.
Click to expand...

Not really... you have to be targeting above the shoulders to make that call. He wasn't targeting above the shoulders. He made contact with his right shoulder pad on the guy's back between his numbers and last name.
 
#416
#416
Definition of Unnecessary Roughness: An illegal play where a player, in the judgement of the officials, uses tactics that are above and beyond what is neccesary to block or tackle another player.
 
#417
#417
Volfan8282 said:
Not really... you have to be targeting above the shoulders to make that call. He wasn't targeting above the shoulders. He made contact with his right shoulder pad on the guy's back between his numbers and last name.
Click to expand...

An intelligent official does not make that call.
 
#418
#418
orangetanker11 said:
Definition of Unnecessary Roughness: An illegal play where a player, in the judgement of the officials, uses tactics that are above and beyond what is neccesary to block or tackle another player.
Click to expand...


Unnecessary roughness was only called because the official believed there to be initial head to head contact. There was no head to head initial contact so the flag should not have been thrown.
 
#420
#420
thagodfather said:
Unnecessary roughness was only called because the official believed there to be initial head to head contact. There was no head to head initial contact so the flag should not have been thrown.
Click to expand...
Did you read the part that says "in the judgment of the officials?" Or, are you just being a little closed-minded?
 
#421
#421
orangetanker11 said:
Definition of Unnecessary Roughness: An illegal play where a player, in the judgement of the officials, uses tactics that are above and beyond what is neccesary to block or tackle another player.
Click to expand...

The ref clearly stated that "the hit was above the shoulders" ...
 
#422
#422
orangetanker11 said:
I have seen the play. I have seen the picture. Pretty sure I have already explained how the receiver could be considered a defenseless receiver. Your reading comprehension or short-term memory must be nil.
Click to expand...

You just don't know when to stop do you? When have I taken a personal shot at you?
 
#423
#423
orangetanker11 said:
I have seen the play. I have seen the picture. Pretty sure I have already explained how the receiver could be considered a defenseless receiver. Your reading comprehension or short-term memory must be nil.
Click to expand...

If you have read the rule and you still believe that the receiver may have been defenseless then your reading comprehension is nil.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top