If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Apparently blocking is no longer allowed in college football   (youtube.com) divider line 113
    More: Asinine, college football  
•       •       •

4765 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 Sep 2013 at 2:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-08 11:42:53 AM
Really? Looked like a legal block to me.
 
2013-09-08 11:53:58 AM
Personal foul like that and Bell should be out for the remainder of the game, and perhaps the next few.  That's how players get injured for life.
 
2013-09-08 12:00:03 PM

clancifer: Personal foul like that and Bell should be out for the remainder of the game, and perhaps the next few.  That's how players get injured for life.


What, exactly, was the personal foul?  The guy was chasing the ball carrier, they were close to the ball, Bell got in a good shot to block...  I can't see that it was unnecessary roughness.  As a matter of fact, in the slo-mo, it looked to me like the defensive player took a dive.  Probably played alot of soccer in high school.

Fark it.  Corruption won't bring down football - it will be pansy-ass snowflakes who went through their school days wrapped in bubble wrap and can not believe someone would hit them.  And their helicopter parents who sue the school on their behalf, because they chose to participate in a dangerous sport.
 
2013-09-08 12:23:14 PM

clancifer: Personal foul like that and Bell should be out for the remainder of the game, and perhaps the next few. That's how players get injured for life.


So, you really know absolutely nothing about football, correct?
 
2013-09-08 12:23:32 PM
He should have run alongside him and asked him to kindly stop pursuing the ball carrier.
 
2013-09-08 12:29:22 PM

panfried: He should have run alongside him and asked him to kindly stop pursuing the ball carrier.


And asked him to hold his purse.
 
2013-09-08 12:31:22 PM
Disgusting call. That ref should never work again.
 
2013-09-08 12:37:35 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: clancifer: Personal foul like that and Bell should be out for the remainder of the game, and perhaps the next few.  That's how players get injured for life.

What, exactly, was the personal foul?  The guy was chasing the ball carrier, they were close to the ball, Bell got in a good shot to block...  I can't see that it was unnecessary roughness.  As a matter of fact, in the slo-mo, it looked to me like the defensive player took a dive.  Probably played alot of soccer in high school.

Fark it.  Corruption won't bring down football - it will be pansy-ass snowflakes who went through their school days wrapped in bubble wrap and can not believe someone would hit them.  And their helicopter parents who sue the school on their behalf, because they chose to participate in a dangerous sport.


Yes, because most rational parents want their kids engaging in activities that can injure them, with permanent brain damage as the major attraction.

(Of course, this doesn't apply in the US Southeast, where brain damage is celebrated).
 
2013-09-08 12:54:06 PM

bronyaur1: Benevolent Misanthrope: clancifer: Personal foul like that and Bell should be out for the remainder of the game, and perhaps the next few.  That's how players get injured for life.

What, exactly, was the personal foul?  The guy was chasing the ball carrier, they were close to the ball, Bell got in a good shot to block...  I can't see that it was unnecessary roughness.  As a matter of fact, in the slo-mo, it looked to me like the defensive player took a dive.  Probably played alot of soccer in high school.

Fark it.  Corruption won't bring down football - it will be pansy-ass snowflakes who went through their school days wrapped in bubble wrap and can not believe someone would hit them.  And their helicopter parents who sue the school on their behalf, because they chose to participate in a dangerous sport.

Yes, because most rational parents want their kids engaging in activities that can injure them, with permanent brain damage as the major attraction.


Ummmm... yeah, they seem to.  School football is still popular in the US.  If I had kids, there's no way in hell I would allow them to play football.  It's a dangerous sport, and there's not a helmet or pads out there that can keep a kid's head and neck protected.  They can play other sports.

If someone chooses to play a dangerous sport, though, they should not be surprised when they get hit.  And if you play college football, you sure as hell should not be surprised when you get hit.
 
2013-09-08 12:54:22 PM

bronyaur1: Yes, because most rational parents want their kids engaging in activities that can injure them, with permanent brain damage as the major attraction.


Going outside is highly overrated.
 
2013-09-08 12:57:35 PM
Well it's no longer allowed in the NFL either. Gotta get them used to the rules.
 
2013-09-08 01:01:33 PM
Holy farking cum sucking christ that was a HORRIBLE call and part of the reason why I can barely even have football on the tv anymore.  The defender was like 2 steps behind the ball carrier and he got blocked.  farking penalty?  Eat a goddamn dick, modern football.
 
2013-09-08 01:17:48 PM
Bad call, it looked like a completely legal hit.  He led with his shoulder, not his helmet, and he hit him right in the chest where he's supposed to.  The refs overreacted.
 
2013-09-08 01:33:09 PM
This was last season?
 
2013-09-08 01:45:56 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Bad call, it looked like a completely legal hit.  He led with his shoulder, not his helmet, and he hit him right in the chest where he's supposed to.  The refs overreacted.


Exactly.  But you gotta give style points to Smith - I'm pretty sure he took a dive there.  I could be wrong, but it looks to me like he definitely pushed of with his right foot when he was hit
 
2013-09-08 02:37:02 PM
Uh.  Helmet to helmet?  Duh?

Am I missing something here?
 
2013-09-08 02:39:52 PM
Why are we seeing a clip from last year?
 
2013-09-08 02:41:05 PM

dartben: Why are we seeing a clip from last year?


Because subby is a farking idiot.

/subby
 
2013-09-08 02:42:15 PM
Hines Ward nods, goes back to training for his next triathlon.
 
2013-09-08 02:42:21 PM
But, but, but ... that hit looked awfully vicious.  It sent chills down the spine of anyone who watched it.  Because, it's all about what things look and feel like, not what's legal and illegal.
 
2013-09-08 02:46:24 PM
Not sure if the offender launched himself and that drew the foul, or the ref reacted to the seemingly blind hit that made a great sound, and they figured the player was defenseless.
 
2013-09-08 02:47:31 PM

Dafatone: Uh.  Helmet to helmet?  Duh?

Am I missing something here?


Um, apparently you are.  He hit him so much with his shoulder that it's technically bad form (though quite effective in this case).
 
2013-09-08 02:50:48 PM
Apparently subs (and the alleged "blocker") has missed the whole concussions hoopla in the NCAA and NFL not to mention evolving rules on helmet to helmet contact.
 
2013-09-08 02:59:13 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Bad call, it looked like a completely legal hit.  He led with his shoulder, not his helmet, and he hit him right in the chest where he's supposed to.  The refs overreacted.


THIS.  The blocker did everything by the book.  Maybe because of the speed and strength of these players, enhanced by space-age shoes and turf, and pads, etc. the old techniques are too dangerous.  But then it's not football anymore.

/football fan
//old
///hates to see the game get too soft
////also hates to see kids get hurt
 
2013-09-08 03:01:16 PM

harleyquinnical: Not sure if the offender launched himself and that drew the foul, or the ref reacted to the seemingly blind hit that made a great sound, and they figured the player was defenseless.


He didn't leave his feet, he didn't launch himself, it was from the front, and it wasn't helmet-to-helmet.

There was nothing at all wrong with that block that would warrant a penalty.
 
2013-09-08 03:02:21 PM

edmo: Apparently subs (and the alleged "blocker") has missed the whole concussions hoopla in the NCAA and NFL not to mention evolving rules on helmet to helmet contact.


Except that the hit was clean, shoulder to chest, and the helmets touching was incidental to the blow. The reverse angle slow-mo makes it look bad, I agree, but the front angle shows a clean shot that would get him a spot on most hockey teams in the country if the kid can skate worth a darn. The flag was reaction to the (willfully) "blind" nature of the hit - if the corner hadn't been so target fixated he'd have easily seen the WR coming and wouldn't have taken nearly so devestating a hit.

Awful call.
 
2013-09-08 03:08:05 PM
Completely legit hit. Hopefully the defender will learn his lesson and keep his eyes open next time.
 
2013-09-08 03:08:27 PM

panfried: He should have run alongside him and asked him to kindly stop pursuing the ball carrier.


Should have shot him.
 
2013-09-08 03:08:43 PM

Do not hit with the helmet.  Is that too difficult to understand.

it's not dont lead with the the helmet, or don't hit helmet-to-helmet, it's "DON'T HIT WITH THE HELMET". "DON'T MAKE CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDER"

The NCAA has defined the rules clearly. Officials will look for players who initiate above-the-shoulder contact with a defenseless player using the crown of their helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. An emphasis is being put on players who launch themselves, thrusting upward or leaving their feet to hit the head or neck.

Helmet-to-helmet is an ejection. Hitting with/to the helmet is a roughness penalty. You wouldn't lead with your head, don't lead with your helmet. Use your pads.

Learn to tackle.

 
2013-09-08 03:11:47 PM

Hoban Washburne: Dafatone: Uh.  Helmet to helmet?  Duh?

Am I missing something here?

Um, apparently you are.  He hit him so much with his shoulder that it's technically bad form (though quite effective in this case).


well, watch the slo mo part.  he lowered then raised his body into him.  he led with his shoulder but definitely hit helmet to helmet.  yeah, it's legal, but the helmet-to-helmet part was why the ref called it.  to me, college football's a sham anyway but the force of that blindside was excessive for the desired outcome.
 
2013-09-08 03:12:22 PM

clancifer: Personal foul like that and Bell should be out for the remainder of the game, and perhaps the next few.  That's how players get injured for life.


Bullshiat.  That was a legitimate block where he used his shoulder...the other guy should have his head on a swivel and be paying attention to what might be coming at him.  Learn the rules before you spout off.  We're still a year or 2 away from flag football, but until then; that has been and will be, a legal block.
 
2013-09-08 03:14:23 PM
he could have laid a block there without lowering the boom.  he blasted him with everything he had
 
2013-09-08 03:14:46 PM
It's the blokers responsibility to ensure there's no helmet-to-helmet contact. He failed to do so, it was carelessness rather than intent, but  res ipsa loquitor
 
2013-09-08 03:17:52 PM
ITT: People who don't play any sports claim their favorite sport (a sport they don't play) is being ruined.

Benevolent Misanthrope: If someone chooses to play a dangerous sport, though, they should not be surprised when they get hit. And if you play college football, you sure as hell should not be surprised when you get hit.


Step 1: "ALL THE ATHLETES SHOULD GO TO FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES"
Step 2: Players pursue a dangerous sport, whether by own choice or by parents shuffling them into the sport, sometimes against their own will.
Step 3: "WELL THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER WHEN THEY DECIDED TO TAKE UP FOOTBALL"
Step 4: lol
 
2013-09-08 03:18:27 PM
Destroyer at the end of the video. Well done.
 
2013-09-08 03:22:47 PM

Mike_LowELL: ITT: People who don't play any sports claim their favorite sport (a sport they don't play) is being ruined.

Benevolent Misanthrope: If someone chooses to play a dangerous sport, though, they should not be surprised when they get hit. And if you play college football, you sure as hell should not be surprised when you get hit.

Step 1: "ALL THE ATHLETES SHOULD GO TO FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES"
Step 2: Players pursue a dangerous sport, whether by own choice or by parents shuffling them into the sport, sometimes against their own will.
Step 3: "WELL THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER WHEN THEY DECIDED TO TAKE UP FOOTBALL"
Step 4: lol


It's not about them not being intelligent enough to make decisions for themselves.  There's no minor league for football, and players straight out of high school aren't well enough developed physically to handle the NFL.  College football has a lot of proud traditions, and it does give a lot of student athletes an opportunity for a better education that they might not have otherwise.  The vast majority of players will never make the NFL, so taking advantage of the free education to have a career path to follow is a smart idea.

Kids who are playing against their will because their parents want them to aren't going to end up on division 1 rosters very often, if there is even a worthwhile number of them to worry about in the first place.
 
2013-09-08 03:23:28 PM

The Flexecutioner: he lowered then raised his body into him.


Huh?  Is that a bad thing now?  That's just basic technique.

The Flexecutioner: he led with his shoulder but definitely hit helmet to helmet.


You and I are seeing two entirely different things.  The blocker's entire shoulder and arm end up between him and the defender.  If there was any helmet touching (which I haven't clearly seen) it was entirely incidental.  Basically, if you wanted to throw a flag any times helmets touched, there would be countless penalties at the line of scrimmage every single play.
 
2013-09-08 03:24:14 PM
It is a (borderline) illegal move for two reasons: 1. Helmet to helmet. Yes the shoulder made contact with the chest first, but the helmets did collide. and 2. He launched at the defensive player. If you see on the slow motion, he clearly changed from a running motion to a jumping motion prior to contact and both feet left the ground.

In the past it would have been fine; but with the new safety consciousness, I can see the call.
 
2013-09-08 03:25:18 PM

Hoban Washburne: Basically, if you wanted to throw a flag any times helmets touched, there would be countless penalties at the line of scrimmage every single play.


Which, somewhat ironically, is where much of the damage that people are so worried about actually occurs.
 
2013-09-08 03:26:39 PM

ltdanman44: he could have laid a block there without lowering the boom.  he blasted him with everything he had


Basic physics. Try to follow.

Two large fellows running towards each other. Force is doubled when they hit.
 
2013-09-08 03:27:42 PM

Mike_LowELL: ITT: People who don't play any sports claim their favorite sport (a sport they don't play) is being ruined.


People loudly denouncing "what football has become" while continuing to watch just as often as ever
 
2013-09-08 03:28:31 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The vast majority of players will never make the NFL, so taking advantage of the free education to have a career path to follow is a smart idea.


I think you missed my point.  All I hear is how college athletes are not qualified to make life decisions and should therefore go to college, but in adopting a dangerous sport well before that point, according to this thread, "they should have known better".
 
2013-09-08 03:29:16 PM

Sliding Carp: Which, somewhat ironically, is where much of the damage that people are so worried about actually occurs.


YES.  There are studies suggesting that it's not necessarily the big hits but the repetitive "small" collisions that happen every single play that really damage your brain.  Imagine a boxer going 12 rounds and getting peppered in the face the entire time vs. getting one clean shot to the chin in the second and being knocked out.  For the record, I'm all for rules to make the game safer, but they should be clear and logical, not "Oh he hit him hard!" because that's just a normal part of the game.
 
2013-09-08 03:31:41 PM

Mike_LowELL: TuteTibiImperes: The vast majority of players will never make the NFL, so taking advantage of the free education to have a career path to follow is a smart idea.

I think you missed my point.  All I hear is how college athletes are not qualified to make life decisions and should therefore go to college, but in adopting a dangerous sport well before that point, according to this thread, "they should have known better".


I've never heard the argument that college athletes aren't qualified to make life decisions, who are you talking to?
 
2013-09-08 03:31:48 PM

ElwoodCuse: People loudly denouncing "what football has become" while continuing to watch just as often as ever


I can't wait when technology fundamentally obsoletes the concept of sports.  The cognitive dissonance is going to be incredible.
 
2013-09-08 03:32:31 PM

PainfulItching: ltdanman44: he could have laid a block there without lowering the boom.  he blasted him with everything he had

Basic physics. Try to follow.

Two large fellows running towards each other. Force is doubled when they hit.


and if fellow 1 stays away from the head of fellow 2 (like every rugby player does all the time, because there are no helmets and no-one wants to be knocked unconscious every week) then everything's fine.
 
2013-09-08 03:33:19 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I've never heard the argument that college athletes aren't qualified to make life decisions, who are you talking to?


"IF YOU DON'T GO TO SCHOOL FOR FOUR THE FULL FOUR YEARS YOU'RE DOING YOURSELF A DISSERVICE AND YOU WON'T BE MATURE ENOUGH FOR THE NEXT LEVEL", and so forth.
 
2013-09-08 03:37:28 PM
That's the kind of cheap blindside hit that earned Hines Ward his label as a tough guy.
 
2013-09-08 03:37:54 PM

Mike_LowELL: TuteTibiImperes: I've never heard the argument that college athletes aren't qualified to make life decisions, who are you talking to?

"IF YOU DON'T GO TO SCHOOL FOR FOUR THE FULL FOUR YEARS YOU'RE DOING YOURSELF A DISSERVICE AND YOU WON'T BE MATURE ENOUGH FOR THE NEXT LEVEL", and so forth.


Skipping the opportunity for a free education is doing yourself a disservice, even if you make the NFL your career may peter out early on, and it makes sense to have a degree that you can fall back on.  That doesn't have anything to do with being too immature to make life decisions.

The arguments about maturity at the next level are mainly in terms of physical maturity and understanding of the game, not emotional/mental maturity.  Players build a lot of muscle mass over their college careers and learn the most about fine tuning their skills and playing their positions through the coaches at the college level.

It's not that a guy out of high school couldn't make the decision to play in the NFL and understand what he was doing, it's that he'd be eaten alive on the field by larger, stronger, more experience players.
 
2013-09-08 03:47:26 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Skipping the opportunity for a free education is doing yourself a disservice, even if you make the NFL your career may peter out early on, and it makes sense to have a degree that you can fall back on. That doesn't have anything to do with being too immature to make life decisions.


My original post was addressing the audience that claims people who are supposedly going to college so they can learn how to make intelligent decisions are supposed to have the wherewithal to recognize that football is dangerous and that they can make a conscious choice to stop playing it, because it doesn't work that way, ever.
 
2013-09-08 04:08:55 PM

Hoban Washburne: The Flexecutioner: he lowered then raised his body into him.

Huh?  Is that a bad thing now?  That's just basic technique.

The Flexecutioner: he led with his shoulder but definitely hit helmet to helmet.

You and I are seeing two entirely different things.  The blocker's entire shoulder and arm end up between him and the defender.  If there was any helmet touching (which I haven't clearly seen) it was entirely incidental.  Basically, if you wanted to throw a flag any times helmets touched, there would be countless penalties at the line of scrimmage every single play.


It WAS basic technique before they had to retrain players to not go too high on the upper body.  if he'd just lowered his body but not raised into him (instead going straight into him) it would not have been helmet to helmet and still have thrown the guy far enough off his pursuit to end his chances of stopping him.

and you clearly see what you wish to see.  i see what actually happened.  helmet touching at the line of scrimmage isnt the same either and you know it.  but nice try in equating the two.
 
2013-09-08 04:32:40 PM

ltdanman44: he blasted him with everything he had


I can only surmise you've never played real competitive football.
 
2013-09-08 04:35:21 PM
It would've been legit if it hadn't been helmet to helmet. Incidental or leading with the helmet, it's still a penalty.
 
2013-09-08 05:19:46 PM
That wasn't helmet to helmet, He dropped a shoulder right into his chest. oucheroo!
 
2013-09-08 05:19:53 PM
What a terrible goddamn video. That slomo made it unwatchable.
 
2013-09-08 05:31:45 PM

flucto: Disgusting call. That ref should never work again.


You do realize College ball is a sham and NCAA does it's best to rig it, right?

They put more effort going after Auburn, whose biggest crime was beating a team paid for by Nike for the championship, than going after a college that had been protecting a child rapist for decades.
 
2013-09-08 05:36:12 PM
Here's a view of the hit from another angle that really makes it look scary.

Link
 
2013-09-08 05:36:13 PM
Anyone point out that this clip is from last year yet?

Also, the defender kinda needs to take a peek at his surroundings every once in a while.  The blocker isn't responsible for making sure the defender sees him coming.  The defender needs to assume that someone WILL be attempting to block him.
 
2013-09-08 05:36:45 PM
I like how so many commenters here claim to be such football experts so as to be enraged, but are actually so ignorant about football that they don't realize this happened nine months ago.
 
2013-09-08 05:40:36 PM

Your Average Witty Fark User: It would've been legit if it hadn't been helmet to helmet. Incidental or leading with the helmet, it's still a penalty.


So you're saying it was a legit block.

/0:46
 
2013-09-08 05:42:14 PM

Erom: That wasn't helmet to helmet, He dropped a shoulder right into his chest. oucheroo!


He put the crown of his helmet into the other guy's ear hole.
 
2013-09-08 05:47:54 PM

AlgertMan: flucto: Disgusting call. That ref should never work again.

You do realize College ball is a sham and NCAA does it's best to rig it, right?

They put more effort going after Auburn, whose biggest crime was beating a team paid for by Nike for the championship, than going after a college that had been protecting a child rapist for decades.


And you realize I'm sure that the NCAA is responsible for enforcing the rules in their own book, which primarily deal with play on the field, recruiting, practice regulations, player eligibility, and compensation, and is not in any way a criminal investigation organization.

The NCAA is concerned with logistics and making sure all schools play by the same rules.  Sometimes they fail at that, and it's fair to criticize them on those counts, but anything involving the Penn State scandal was completely out of their purview.
 
182
2013-09-08 06:25:17 PM

Voiceofreason01: Really? Looked like a legal block to me.


this.  and didn't even celebrate.
 
2013-09-08 06:53:09 PM

TuteTibiImperes: AlgertMan: flucto: Disgusting call. That ref should never work again.

You do realize College ball is a sham and NCAA does it's best to rig it, right?

They put more effort going after Auburn, whose biggest crime was beating a team paid for by Nike for the championship, than going after a college that had been protecting a child rapist for decades.

And you realize I'm sure that the NCAA is responsible for enforcing the rules in their own book, which primarily deal with play on the field, recruiting, practice regulations, player eligibility, and compensation, and is not in any way a criminal investigation organization.

The NCAA is concerned with logistics and making sure all schools play by the same rules.  Sometimes they fail at that, and it's fair to criticize them on those counts, but anything involving the Penn State scandal was completely out of their purview.


NCAA is bunch of pussies.  Penn should have got the death penalty and the NCAAA was going to sit back and do nothing until the public outcry becmae to loud for them.  SMU is the only team to get the death penalty and got it for paying players.  They beat the wrong teams and pissed off the NCAA.  College football is a joke.
 
2013-09-08 06:54:12 PM

AlgertMan: Penn should have got the death penalty


Why?
 
2013-09-08 06:59:13 PM

Hoban Washburne: Sliding Carp: Which, somewhat ironically, is where much of the damage that people are so worried about actually occurs.

YES.  There are studies suggesting that it's not necessarily the big hits but the repetitive "small" collisions that happen every single play that really damage your brain.  Imagine a boxer going 12 rounds and getting peppered in the face the entire time vs. getting one clean shot to the chin in the second and being knocked out.  For the record, I'm all for rules to make the game safer, but they should be clear and logical, not "Oh he hit him hard!" because that's just a normal part of the game.


It's that fact, I think, that will actually kill football as we know it.  Not because of rules changes, but because when the parents of 'just average' middle-school and high-school kids learn about that research, there's no way in hell the teams will have enough players to support the wannabe superstars whose parents will ignore it.  Without the supporting cast in high school, the high school stars won't get good enough to keep the ticket and tv money rolling in in college, and that's all she wrote.
 
2013-09-08 07:00:48 PM

The Flexecutioner: helmet touching at the line of scrimmage isnt the same either and you know it.  but nice try in equating the two.


Helmets 'touching' at the line of scrimmage is probably what's causing the CTE in ex-linemen.
 
2013-09-08 07:10:45 PM

AlgertMan: TuteTibiImperes: AlgertMan: flucto: Disgusting call. That ref should never work again.

You do realize College ball is a sham and NCAA does it's best to rig it, right?

They put more effort going after Auburn, whose biggest crime was beating a team paid for by Nike for the championship, than going after a college that had been protecting a child rapist for decades.

And you realize I'm sure that the NCAA is responsible for enforcing the rules in their own book, which primarily deal with play on the field, recruiting, practice regulations, player eligibility, and compensation, and is not in any way a criminal investigation organization.

The NCAA is concerned with logistics and making sure all schools play by the same rules.  Sometimes they fail at that, and it's fair to criticize them on those counts, but anything involving the Penn State scandal was completely out of their purview.

NCAA is bunch of pussies.  Penn should have got the death penalty and the NCAAA was going to sit back and do nothing until the public outcry becmae to loud for them.  SMU is the only team to get the death penalty and got it for paying players.  They beat the wrong teams and pissed off the NCAA.  College football is a joke.


The NCAA has rules, regulations, and procedures.  SMU violated those rules and faced the punishment that was laid out in those rules for doing so.  An ex coach at Penn State did some very bad things, the current coach didn't do everything he possibly could have to prevent it, and the administration tried to sweep it under the rug, but the only way that the NCAA could do anything about it was under the guise of an integrity violation.

The players on the team, majority of the coaching staff, and vast majority of people involved in the program had no idea what was going on and weren't guilty of anything.  In the SMU case, SMU was already on probation for rules violations, and they kept paying players and violating recruiting rules.  They were given multiple shots to get their act together, yet continued to violate the rules.  Plus, the NCAA was very worried at the time about pay-for-play as well as recruiting violations, and SMU gave them the perfect opportunity to make an example to help prevent it from becoming a widespread trend.

What happened at Penn State was more serious than what happened at SMU, but what happened at SMU was a direct violation of NCAA regulations and a slap in the face to the NCAA who had already given SMU multiple chances to clean up their act.  The wrongdoing at SMU was more widespread throughout members of the program, including students, compared to what happened at Penn State.  Working within their scope, the NCAA's actions were appropriate in both cases, if anything they were perhaps a bit harsher than they needed to be to Penn State.

The wrongdoing at Penn State was a criminal matter, to be handled by criminal courts, which is what has happened thus far, it wasn't the NCAA's show.
 
2013-09-08 07:16:40 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Fark it.  Corruption won't bring down football - it will be pansy-ass snowflakes who went through their school days wrapped in bubble wrap and can not believe someone would hit them.  And their helicopter parents who sue the school on their behalf, because they chose to participate in a dangerous sport.


Jesus Christ, this bullshiat argument again.

Do you support Black Lung benefits for coal miners?  I mean, the effects of coalworker's pneumoconiosis have been known since the mid-60s.  So coalworkers know what they might get, and yet they still chose to work in the coal mines. Thus absolving the federal government and the coal mine owners of any responsibility to their well-being.  That is, if we apply people's arguments about professional football to coal miners.

/Doesn't matter if you make millions or a pittance...a worker is a worker, and if you as an owner are not doing your best to ensure that they and/or their families are taken care of in the event of known catastrophic job risks coming to pass, then you should not be an owner in that field. Period.
 
2013-09-08 08:14:30 PM
Legal and beautiful, but in the end, a cheapshot, and he knows it.
 
2013-09-08 08:41:51 PM

Sliding Carp: Hoban Washburne: Sliding Carp: Which, somewhat ironically, is where much of the damage that people are so worried about actually occurs.

YES.  There are studies suggesting that it's not necessarily the big hits but the repetitive "small" collisions that happen every single play that really damage your brain.  Imagine a boxer going 12 rounds and getting peppered in the face the entire time vs. getting one clean shot to the chin in the second and being knocked out.  For the record, I'm all for rules to make the game safer, but they should be clear and logical, not "Oh he hit him hard!" because that's just a normal part of the game.

It's that fact, I think, that will actually kill football as we know it.  Not because of rules changes, but because when the parents of 'just average' middle-school and high-school kids learn about that research, there's no way in hell the teams will have enough players to support the wannabe superstars whose parents will ignore it.  Without the supporting cast in high school, the high school stars won't get good enough to keep the ticket and tv money rolling in in college, and that's all she wrote.


Why the hell are middle-aged school kids playing football anyway?  Outside of the quarterback position, there is nowhere near as much technique involved in playing football as in other sports.  There are Pro Bowlers who didn't play college football, FFS.  You'd be better off feeding your kid a steady diet of HGH if you want him to be a pro football player.
 
2013-09-08 08:47:54 PM

flucto: Disgusting call. That ref should never work again.


He probably spent some time on NFL fields a year ago.
 
2013-09-08 08:53:36 PM

FLMountainMan: Why the hell are middle-aged school kids playing football anyway?  Outside of the quarterback position, there is nowhere near as much technique involved in playing football as in other sports.  There are Pro Bowlers who didn't play college football, FFS.  You'd be better off feeding your kid a steady diet of HGH if you want him to be a pro football player.


Who is that?
 
2013-09-08 09:15:11 PM
 
2013-09-08 09:28:42 PM

StRalphTheLiar: Fake handoffs are not allowed either.


Well yeah, he should've laid on his back before he got hit. Can't wait for the real referees come back,..........
 
2013-09-08 09:33:58 PM

Slow To Return: Your Average Witty Fark User: It would've been legit if it hadn't been helmet to helmet. Incidental or leading with the helmet, it's still a penalty.

So you're saying it was a legit block.

/0:46


Do not put words in my mouth. It was helmet to helmet. Period.
 
2013-09-08 09:40:05 PM
Reminds one of Dwayne Slay.
 
2013-09-08 09:43:40 PM

basemetal: This was last season?


dartben: Why are we seeing a clip from last year?


These.  I mean, I'm glad the green hasn't been taken away, but still.
 
2013-09-08 09:44:45 PM
That was a beautiful hit. IMHO legal too, refs were shiat.

If that we're in the pros Bell would've been in his face afterwards saying "Deebo! You just got knocked tha fark out!"
 
2013-09-08 10:01:44 PM
Deliberate helmet to helmet. I coach kids and if one of my kids laid a "legal block" like that he would be benched for the rest of the game both for risking the other player and himself. (by the way in our league sitting for the rest of the game is mandatory after a headshot)

Oh did I fail to mention my own son has been out of school for a week due to a concussion from a block after the whistle where there was no penalty. If we are not careful about head shots it may cost us the game as parents pull their kids.
 
2013-09-08 10:41:56 PM
Heck of a block, but why are we seeing highlights from last season?
 
2013-09-08 10:47:43 PM

clancifer: Personal foul like that and Bell should be out for the remainder of the game, and perhaps the next few.  That's how players get injured for life.


Stay away from football.  It's a man's game.  No place for the likes of you.

/try tennis.  very little contact in tennis.
 
2013-09-08 10:51:10 PM

gwowen: Do not hit with the helmet.  Is that too difficult to understand.it's not dont lead with the the helmet, or don't hit helmet-to-helmet, it's "DON'T HIT WITH THE HELMET". "DON'T MAKE CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDER"
The NCAA has defined the rules clearly. Officials will look for players who initiate above-the-shoulder contact with a defenseless player using the crown of their helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. An emphasis is being put on players who launch themselves, thrusting upward or leaving their feet to hit the head or neck.
Helmet-to-helmet is an ejection. Hitting with/to the helmet is a roughness penalty. You wouldn't lead with your head, don't lead with your helmet. Use your pads. Learn to tackle.


Know how I know you didn't watch the farking video?  This was a block.  A particularly vicious and very legal block.  Shoulder of blocker to chest of blockee.  No tackling involved.
 
2013-09-08 11:07:59 PM
check their division. is it the sec? no? the call stands./and suspend him for a few games too//tickleball
 
2013-09-08 11:21:37 PM

Your Average Witty Fark User: Slow To Return: Your Average Witty Fark User: It would've been legit if it hadn't been helmet to helmet. Incidental or leading with the helmet, it's still a penalty.

So you're saying it was a legit block.

/0:46

Do not put words in my mouth. It was helmet to helmet. Period.


Bullshiat.  Watch the video.  The blocker put his shoulder to the guy's chest.  Period.  When his forward motion was stopped by that SHOULDER TO CHEST block, his head snapped forward and yes, their helmets touched.  But the blocker did not lead with the helmet, nor did he make intentional contact with his helmet.
 
2013-09-09 12:04:09 AM

Voiceofreason01: Really? Looked like a legal block to me.


Laying out a defenseless player is illegal, especially that high since you can seriously hurt someone like that, keep pushing this type of play and it will kill off the sport. He could have easily just ran over in front of him without laying him out like that, it was done because they were getting beat.
 
2013-09-09 12:06:07 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Your Average Witty Fark User: Slow To Return: Your Average Witty Fark User: It would've been legit if it hadn't been helmet to helmet. Incidental or leading with the helmet, it's still a penalty.

So you're saying it was a legit block.

/0:46

Do not put words in my mouth. It was helmet to helmet. Period.

Bullshiat.  Watch the video.  The blocker put his shoulder to the guy's chest.  Period.  When his forward motion was stopped by that SHOULDER TO CHEST block, his head snapped forward and yes, their helmets touched.  But the blocker did not lead with the helmet, nor did he make intentional contact with his helmet.


That doesnt matter any longer, the rule has been changed to defenseless player, which this would be considered. You are not allowed to blow up players like this any longer which does take a bit from the game but will allow careers to be longer, personally I prefer the later.
 
2013-09-09 12:12:55 AM

FriarReb98: basemetal: This was last season?

dartben: Why are we seeing a clip from last year?

These.  I mean, I'm glad the green hasn't been taken away, but still.


Yeah, this was from last year.  I checked.
 
2013-09-09 12:28:00 AM
WTF?  When was that game and why the discussion so long after the fact?
 
2013-09-09 12:37:01 AM

steamingpile: Benevolent Misanthrope: Your Average Witty Fark User: Slow To Return: Your Average Witty Fark User: It would've been legit if it hadn't been helmet to helmet. Incidental or leading with the helmet, it's still a penalty.

So you're saying it was a legit block.

/0:46

Do not put words in my mouth. It was helmet to helmet. Period.

Bullshiat.  Watch the video.  The blocker put his shoulder to the guy's chest.  Period.  When his forward motion was stopped by that SHOULDER TO CHEST block, his head snapped forward and yes, their helmets touched.  But the blocker did not lead with the helmet, nor did he make intentional contact with his helmet.

That doesnt matter any longer, the rule has been changed to defenseless player, which this would be considered. You are not allowed to blow up players like this any longer which does take a bit from the game but will allow careers to be longer, personally I prefer the later.


Eliminating deliberate contact to the head, late hits, and hits to players not close enough to make contact with the ball make sense.  Banning incidental helmet to helmet contact as a result of a tackle or hit that was initiated properly seems a bit extreme.  The defenseless player rule is also overly broad.  It includes players in the process of catching a pass as well as anyone who isn't looking where a block is coming from.  One of the key ways defensive secondary players create turnovers is by hitting at the moment someone is catching a pass, IMO anyone with the ball shouldn't be considered defenseless.  Also, blind side blocks are too vague.  It's the duty of the player running down the field to make sure he's aware of what is going on around him.  Penalizing hits against those players just rewards inattentive play.

I understand that a balance has to be struck between safety and the traditions of the game, but those seem to go a bit too far.
 
2013-09-09 12:56:26 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Your Average Witty Fark User: Slow To Return: Your Average Witty Fark User: It would've been legit if it hadn't been helmet to helmet. Incidental or leading with the helmet, it's still a penalty.

So you're saying it was a legit block.

/0:46

Do not put words in my mouth. It was helmet to helmet. Period.

Bullshiat.  Watch the video.  The blocker put his shoulder to the guy's chest.  Period.  When his forward motion was stopped by that SHOULDER TO CHEST block, his head snapped forward and yes, their helmets touched.  But the blocker did not lead with the helmet, nor did he make intentional contact with his helmet.


100% incorrect.  watch it again and notice in both slow mo and full speed (from the clearer angle from the right, not just from behind) he strikes with helmet first.  in the slow mo the FIRST thing that moves is the defenders face mask turning and then the rest of his body.  that is 100% irrefutable proof it was helmet to helmet first.  if it had been shoulder to chest first his head would have dipped a bit (and his shoulder pads would have registered a small amount of movement before anything else), even if it was just a fraction of a millisecond before hand.  it would be conclusively apparent in the slow mo.  but it isn't.  his helmet moved first then his body.  even if it had been shoulder to helmet it would be illegal but the video is clear.
 
2013-09-09 01:12:40 AM

steamingpile: Benevolent Misanthrope: Your Average Witty Fark User: Slow To Return: Your Average Witty Fark User: It would've been legit if it hadn't been helmet to helmet. Incidental or leading with the helmet, it's still a penalty.

So you're saying it was a legit block.

/0:46

Do not put words in my mouth. It was helmet to helmet. Period.

Bullshiat.  Watch the video.  The blocker put his shoulder to the guy's chest.  Period.  When his forward motion was stopped by that SHOULDER TO CHEST block, his head snapped forward and yes, their helmets touched.  But the blocker did not lead with the helmet, nor did he make intentional contact with his helmet.

That doesnt matter any longer, the rule has been changed to defenseless player, which this would be considered. You are not allowed to blow up players like this any longer which does take a bit from the game but will allow careers to be longer, personally I prefer the later.


I don't know, I'd rather see this type of hit rather than the receiver diving at his knees to stop him. I know he loaded up for the hit, but the defensive player was running full speed after the ball carrier and the last thing you can do is let yourself get run over or muff the block by going at it too soft.

This was a clean football play, and I think the defensive player would agree if you had a private conversation with him. It's not like the Warren Sapp hit on Chad Clifton years ago where that was totally away from the ball. It's hard to call someone a defenseless player when they're the main pursuit on a potential scoring play.
 
2013-09-09 01:19:51 AM

The Flexecutioner: Benevolent Misanthrope: Your Average Witty Fark User: Slow To Return: Your Average Witty Fark User: It would've been legit if it hadn't been helmet to helmet. Incidental or leading with the helmet, it's still a penalty.

So you're saying it was a legit block.

/0:46

Do not put words in my mouth. It was helmet to helmet. Period.

Bullshiat.  Watch the video.  The blocker put his shoulder to the guy's chest.  Period.  When his forward motion was stopped by that SHOULDER TO CHEST block, his head snapped forward and yes, their helmets touched.  But the blocker did not lead with the helmet, nor did he make intentional contact with his helmet.

100% incorrect.  watch it again and notice in both slow mo and full speed (from the clearer angle from the right, not just from behind) he strikes with helmet first.  in the slow mo the FIRST thing that moves is the defenders face mask turning and then the rest of his body.  that is 100% irrefutable proof it was helmet to helmet first.  if it had been shoulder to chest first his head would have dipped a bit (and his shoulder pads would have registered a small amount of movement before anything else), even if it was just a fraction of a millisecond before hand.  it would be conclusively apparent in the slow mo.  but it isn't.  his helmet moved first then his body.  even if it had been shoulder to helmet it would be illegal but the video is clear.


I disagree, it's pretty clear from the footage that the shoulder to the chest hit first, and any helmet to helmet contact was minor and incidental.  The front shot at the beginning of the video shows it best, but even in the slow-mo you can see the body stop before the head moves considerably.  There's some sort of weird MPEG video artifact that makes it sort of look like the helmet moves, but that's just a video compression ghost I believe.
 
2013-09-09 01:49:40 AM
watch the facemask.  it moves to the left before any other thing from both angles.  pause it and check as many times as you need.  it's not even in question.  many will try to write it off as some technical thing but my connection is good and the quality is high.  it's very clear.  if had been shoulder to chest his jersey and pads would move first but they don't.
 
2013-09-09 01:55:35 AM

The Flexecutioner: watch the facemask.  it moves to the left before any other thing from both angles.  pause it and check as many times as you need.  it's not even in question.  many will try to write it off as some technical thing but my connection is good and the quality is high.  it's very clear.  if had been shoulder to chest his jersey and pads would move first but they don't.


In the slo-mo you can sort of see the facemask move first, but that could just be because the head has it's own pivot point (the neck) and moved faster than the rest of his body recoiled.  The defender's helmet isn't anywhere near the guys helmet as he makes the hit, and the front angle shows him leading with the shoulder pretty clearly.
 
2013-09-09 01:58:50 AM

srhp29: WTF?  When was that game and why the discussion so long after the fact?


That was the Big Ten Championship game, Dec 1, 2012.  Wisconsin scored 42 in the first half and had 539 rushing yards

Wisconsin won 70-31  Box Score

It probably got some discussion then as well, but the game was such a blow out already by that point, and there are no fines for big hits in college, so no one really cared.
 
2013-09-09 02:06:23 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Eliminating deliberate contact to the head, late hits, and hits to players not close enough to make contact with the ball make sense. Banning incidental helmet to helmet contact as a result of a tackle or hit that was initiated properly seems a bit extreme. The defenseless player rule is also overly broad. It includes players in the process of catching a pass as well as anyone who isn't looking where a block is coming from. One of the key ways defensive secondary players create turnovers is by hitting at the moment someone is catching a pass, IMO anyone with the ball shouldn't be considered defenseless. Also, blind side blocks are too vague. It's the duty of the player running down the field to make sure he's aware of what is going on around him. Penalizing hits against those players just rewards inattentive play.

I understand that a balance has to be struck between safety and the traditions of the game, but those seem to go a bit too far.


See thats the thing, both scenarios fit your IMO later in your statement, and its the most common time a player gets hurt, hits like that have even paralyzed players. This defender had no idea he was coming and most will call a high hit on anything mid numbers and above since hits in that area can cause serious damage and if its a really smaller player it can kill, high school players have died from hits in the area. Im all for aggressive play but if this isnt reeled in a bit you will have schools not getting insurance to field teams and the sport will go away or at the least be replaced by rugby, which is not completely bad, IMO.

coolio mack: I don't know, I'd rather see this type of hit rather than the receiver diving at his knees to stop him. I know he loaded up for the hit, but the defensive player was running full speed after the ball carrier and the last thing you can do is let yourself get run over or muff the block by going at it too soft.

This was a clean football play, and I think the defensive player would agree if you had a private conversation with him. It's not like the Warren Sapp hit on Chad Clifton years ago where that was totally away from the ball. It's hard to call someone a defenseless player when they're the main pursuit on a potential scoring play.


Obviously it wasnt clean since it was called, pay attention to where high hits are called now, anything above the numbers are considered high and get called, sorry but those hits cause permanent damage to kids. He could have still blocked him without lighting him up like that but those kinds of plays have drawn attention to you and kids now think it will get them drafted higher, some of you need to realize that hits like this are not safe and will lead to the sport being sued into oblivion.

It is irrelevant if its to his head, anything above the mid number area has been called the past couple years and it should be called since thats what causes whipping motion of your neck which leads to damage.
 
2013-09-09 02:12:11 AM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: srhp29: WTF?  When was that game and why the discussion so long after the fact?

That was the Big Ten Championship game, Dec 1, 2012.  Wisconsin scored 42 in the first half and had 539 rushing yards

Wisconsin won 70-31  Box Score

It probably got some discussion then as well, but the game was such a blow out already by that point, and there are no fines for big hits in college, so no one really cared.


Thats what I said earlier, this hit was in retaliation for getting their asses kicked and the player should have been ejected for it, lets not act like this was a hard fought game and this play led to a loss.
 
2013-09-09 06:25:34 AM
INSTA-GREEN!!!!
 
2013-09-09 09:00:52 AM

ltdanman44: he could have laid a block there without lowering the boom.  he blasted him with everything he had


It's like cops using their guns, that's what they're there for.
 
2013-09-09 09:17:05 AM
I have no problem with the block, I have a problem with these a-holes who make YouTube videos with super slow replays, and show the thing over and over and over. Jesus, the replay on the original was fine, I didn't need to see it at 3 frames per second afterwards...
 
2013-09-09 10:17:23 AM

Mikey1969: I have no problem with the block, I have a problem with these a-holes who make YouTube videos with super slow replays, and show the thing over and over and over. Jesus, the replay on the original was fine, I didn't need to see it at 3 frames per second afterwards...


I would have no problem with the block if it was in the spirit if the game but since it was obvious retaliation for this wr getting an interception earlier.
 
2013-09-09 01:19:38 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The defenseless player rule is also overly broad. It includes players in the process of catching a pass as well as anyone who isn't looking where a block is coming from. One of the key ways defensive secondary players create turnovers is by hitting at the moment someone is catching a pass, IMO anyone with the ball shouldn't be considered defenseless. Also, blind side blocks are too vague. It's the duty of the player running down the field to make sure he's aware of what is going on around him. Penalizing hits against those players just rewards inattentive play.


Never understood the whole "he wasn't looking! He was defenseless!" argument.

When I was a kid playing youth hockey I was told that if I got caught in a corner with my head down staring at the puck then I pretty much deserved what I was going to get. Which was exactly what happened the first time I got checked, resulting in me being helped off the ice after they scraped me off the boards and ice. Coach didn't yell at the ref for no whistle, he yelled at me for doing what I was told not to do. I wasn't defenseless, I was stupid.

Keep your head up. Your neck lets it rotate a good bit for a reason.
 
2013-09-09 02:14:39 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The Flexecutioner: watch the facemask.  it moves to the left before any other thing from both angles.  pause it and check as many times as you need.  it's not even in question.  many will try to write it off as some technical thing but my connection is good and the quality is high.  it's very clear.  if had been shoulder to chest his jersey and pads would move first but they don't.

In the slo-mo you can sort of see the facemask move first, but that could just be because the head has it's own pivot point (the neck) and moved faster than the rest of his body recoiled.   The defender's helmet isn't anywhere near the guys helmet as he makes the hit, and the front angle shows him leading with the shoulder pretty clearly.


either you are blind or just diggin in yer heals on this but the helmets are right beside each other from the get go. i tried to get just the right pause for this screenie but this is just a split second after the helmets touched first.

pretty clear indeed.

farm3.staticflickr.com
helmettohelmet by mechajebzilla, on Flickr
 
2013-09-09 02:51:37 PM

The Flexecutioner: either you are blind or just diggin in yer heals on this but the helmets are right beside each other from the get go. i tried to get just the right pause for this screenie but this is just a split second after the helmets touched first.


Yep, Bell's head was clearly lowered and leaning in to the block.  Oh, no, wait.  It's not.  he's leaning his head away from the play.  By your logic, Smith should have had the penalty called on him for attempting to counter the block with a vicious headbutt.
 
2013-09-09 03:20:49 PM

The Flexecutioner: TuteTibiImperes: The Flexecutioner: watch the facemask.  it moves to the left before any other thing from both angles.  pause it and check as many times as you need.  it's not even in question.  many will try to write it off as some technical thing but my connection is good and the quality is high.  it's very clear.  if had been shoulder to chest his jersey and pads would move first but they don't.

In the slo-mo you can sort of see the facemask move first, but that could just be because the head has it's own pivot point (the neck) and moved faster than the rest of his body recoiled.   The defender's helmet isn't anywhere near the guys helmet as he makes the hit, and the front angle shows him leading with the shoulder pretty clearly.

either you are blind or just diggin in yer heals on this but the helmets are right beside each other from the get go. i tried to get just the right pause for this screenie but this is just a split second after the helmets touched first.

pretty clear indeed.

[farm3.staticflickr.com image 803x631]
helmettohelmet by mechajebzilla, on Flickr


The part of Bell's body that, to me, appears to be farthest left, is his shoulder.
 
2013-09-09 03:23:13 PM

The Flexecutioner: watch the facemask.  it moves to the left before any other thing from both angles.  pause it and check as many times as you need.  it's not even in question.  many will try to write it off as some technical thing but my connection is good and the quality is high.  it's very clear.  if had been shoulder to chest his jersey and pads would move first but they don't.


The slo-mo video is useless for two reasons. First, because it is clearly full of artifacts that make impossible to tell what happened, and second because it is from entirely the wrong angle. You would never be able to tell what was happening from that angle.

The prior shot is more useful... If you watch the video at 0:46 you can clearly see Bell lower his shoulder and put his SHOULDER into the chest of the other guy. Then you see the guys head snap down towards Bell and hit Bell's helmet. This could ONLY happen if the other guys body was hit VERY hard, causing the body to stop while the head continues with its forward momentum. If the head was impacted FIRST, then the HEAD would be what stopped and the BODY would be the part that continued for a moment before stopping and reversing direction, and there would be no head-snap downfield. It is completely evident from that section of the video that it was shoulder to shoulder/chest, followed by incidental helmet to helmet due to a good hit done in the legally mandated manner, which is front of the body contact only, no blocks from the back or side. The other guy was running forward while looking hard to the left. That left him vulnerable to a big hit, but that is, quite frankly, his own damn fault. If you can't maintain good situational awareness then you shouldn't be playing football at this level.
 
2013-09-09 03:55:15 PM
You call that retaliation?  This was retaliation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdFvKOuMHo">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=xAdFvKOuMHo

Just a heads up on size comparisons

Kenny Bell:   6'1" 185
Devin Smith:  5'11" 186

Chris Borland:  5'11" 246
Taylor Martinez:  6'1" 210
 
2013-09-09 03:57:08 PM
I saw the hit in person, it was vicious, but legal.  The referee waited until the receiver crossed the goal line before he threw the flag, long after the block, but right about the time Devin Smith started writhing and Brett Bielema started crying.
 
2013-09-09 04:49:42 PM

Bad Man Jose: You call that retaliation?  This was retaliation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdFvKOuMHo">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=xAdFvKOuMHo

Just a heads up on size comparisons

Kenny Bell:   6'1" 185
Devin Smith:  5'11" 186

Chris Borland:  5'11" 246
Taylor Martinez:  6'1" 210


Yes and one was more vicious simply because he was traveling full speed, the throw down, while appearing bad was not nearly as bad than the full out hit on a man running at an angle.

Bad Man Jose: I saw the hit in person, it was vicious, but legal.  The referee waited until the receiver crossed the goal line before he threw the flag, long after the block, but right about the time Devin Smith started writhing and Brett Bielema started crying.


Yeah, thats a complete lie, the ref on the sidelines threw his flag the second the play happened and there is doubt he had the best view of the play other than the two players.

Slow To Return: The part of Bell's body that, to me, appears to be farthest left, is his shoulder.


People arguing head shot are being crazy, head shot or not the refs, for the past few years, have been calling any extremely hard hit middle of the chest up since medical reports came out saying those do a ton of damage.

Keep arguing these plays are legal and we will not have a sport to cheer for in the very near future, all it takes are a few lawsuits because of injuries to make insurance companies no longer want to cover the teams and its done.
 
2013-09-09 05:09:43 PM
after viewing the slo mo, i can see someone saying he launched himself or there was some helmet to helmet...but

it looked to me like the the guy who got crushed could 'blow his own horn' or give himself a rim job.
 
2013-09-09 06:14:26 PM

steamingpile: Bad Man Jose: You call that retaliation?  This was retaliation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdFvKOuMHo">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=xAdFvKOuMHo

Just a heads up on size comparisons

Kenny Bell:   6'1" 185
Devin Smith:  5'11" 186

Chris Borland:  5'11" 246
Taylor Martinez:  6'1" 210

Yes and one was more vicious simply because he was traveling full speed, the throw down, while appearing bad was not nearly as bad than the full out hit on a man running at an angle.

Bad Man Jose: I saw the hit in person, it was vicious, but legal.  The referee waited until the receiver crossed the goal line before he threw the flag, long after the block, but right about the time Devin Smith started writhing and Brett Bielema started crying.

Yeah, thats a complete lie, the ref on the sidelines threw his flag the second the play happened and there is doubt he had the best view of the play other than the two players.



I suppose that's why at the 50 second mark, the ref runs right past the play watching the TD.  No yellow on the field in any part of that video except when the ref makes the announcement.  Were you there? If your view is this video, then you have nothing.
 
2013-09-10 12:05:20 AM

Bad Man Jose: steamingpile: Bad Man Jose: You call that retaliation?  This was retaliation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdFvKOuMHo">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=xAdFvKOuMHo

Just a heads up on size comparisons

Kenny Bell:   6'1" 185
Devin Smith:  5'11" 186

Chris Borland:  5'11" 246
Taylor Martinez:  6'1" 210

Yes and one was more vicious simply because he was traveling full speed, the throw down, while appearing bad was not nearly as bad than the full out hit on a man running at an angle.

Bad Man Jose: I saw the hit in person, it was vicious, but legal.  The referee waited until the receiver crossed the goal line before he threw the flag, long after the block, but right about the time Devin Smith started writhing and Brett Bielema started crying.

Yeah, thats a complete lie, the ref on the sidelines threw his flag the second the play happened and there is doubt he had the best view of the play other than the two players.


I suppose that's why at the 50 second mark, the ref runs right past the play watching the TD.  No yellow on the field in any part of that video except when the ref makes the announcement.  Were you there? If your view is this video, then you have nothing.


You do realize this is just one camera angle and there is more than one ref on the field, right?

I watched the train wreck of a game that was and this hit was illegal in terms of hitting a player in the shoulder area and above which is where the NCAA rules state which include any part of the player hitting that area and above. Sorry but you're wrong, it was illegal and a flag was thrown almost immediately after it happened, now the flag may have hit the ground after he crossed the goal line but quit acting stupid and saying he waited till they scored then tossed the flag. Nebraska had no shot in that game anyway, it was over and their defense sucked. They especially try to protect defensive backs since they make up 35% of the head/concussion injuries every year. The hit was illegal read the link and quit acting like it wasn't.

Oh here's the rule changes in case all of you still doubt the validity of the call.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News / 2010+news+stories/October/A+primer+on+NCAA+rules+for+football+safety
 
Displayed 113 of 113 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report