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  
•       •       •

4759 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 Sep 2013 at 2:26 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report