Arkansas Vandy Ejection play

[Atlanta Blue]

SEC press release, which was posted sometime after I left for practice today:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (Nov. 1, 2011) - Upon review of game tapes of the football game between the University of Arkansas and Vanderbilt University, played in Nashville, Tenn. on Saturday, Oct. 29, 2011, Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive has announced that Arkansas freshman Marquel Wade has been suspended for the Razorbacks’ next football game. 
               
Arkansas hosts South Carolina this Saturday in Fayetteville.
               
Wade’s action was in violation of NCAA Football Rule 6-4-1 for a flagrant violation of interfering with an opportunity to catch a kick and NCAA Football Rule 9-1-3 for targeting and initiating contact with an opponent using the crown of his helmet.  The play occurred at the 9:32 mark of the third quarter.
               
This action is taken in accordance with Southeastern Conference Constitution, Article 4.4.2 (d), which states that a student-athlete may be suspended if it is determined that the student-athlete has committed a flagrant or unsportsmanlike act. 

_________________________________________________________

As for arthur's file, I think there should have been an ejection.  While the first hit should have been a foul, it might not have been ejectable.  The second one CERTAINLY was worthy of the rest of the day off.

[TXMike]

I know you are a coach Blue, but try to keep up.    

According to the link below, he will be suspended for this week's game.

http://www.katv.com/story/15927241/wade-suspended-for-south-carolina-game

[busman]

Arkansas has Vandy one more time in this rotation (assuming somethign radical isn't done before next year's expansion).  Wade will probably get paid back next year with something worse than an ejection. We can safely assume Vanderbilt players are smart enough not to forget.

[mbyron]

We can safely assume Vanderbilt players are smart enough not to forget.

I wonder whether they're smart enough to forgive.

[arthurhawgerelli]

I guess since OJ got off, we should never prosecute people for murder anymore.

Two flags: KPI and USC, both on Wade. Ejection.
Your gif: A pair of PF's for illegal use of helmet, one live-ball, one dead. With an ejection.

This really isn't that hard. You're just making it so.

I'm making this hard?  My question was why wouldn't you eject on the gif?  There was one penalty, for the late hit.  No ejection.  No second flag for use of the crown of the helmet at any time.

[GoodScout]

I'm agreeing that there should have been an ejection on the play your GIF illustrates.
But just because one crew failed to do its job doesn't mean the one on the Arkansas-Vandy game should have punted what Wade did (hence my allusion to an OJ exception).

They're both ejectable fouls and should have been treated as such. It's not that hard.

[bama_stripes]

He was educated in Florida and New Jersey his first 19 years.  We've only had him for 9 months.  At least we have him saying "Yes, sir" instead of "yeah, man".

I noticed that as well.  It's hard for a freshman to get up in front of a bunch of cameras & come off like a seasoned veteran.

[arthurhawgerelli]

I'm agreeing that there should have been an ejection on the play your GIF illustrates.
But just because one crew failed to do its job doesn't mean the one on the Arkansas-Vandy game should have punted what Wade did (hence my allusion to an OJ exception).

They're both ejectable fouls and should have been treated as such. It's not that hard.

[Lash]

I think the problem Arkansas fans are having is with the discretion as to what is a flagrant hit that deserves an ejection and suspension. From the rule posted in the OP I agree Wade should have been ejected. However, that doesn't seem to be what officialls normally do. In addition to the video AH posted, below are two other instances from SEC games this year that seem to also deserve ejections according to the rules stated by the SEC about Wade, yet neither one even drew a flag. It's odd that all three of these plays were allowed to go and did not bring an ejection, yet this one play by the Arkansas player suddenly did. It doesn't help that Curles' crew was suspended after missing some calls against Arkansas in a game two years ago, so most Arkansas automatically distrust him.

Helmet-to-helmet, with no flag -






And then this one is almost exactly the same as the play Wade is ejected for, but not ejection that I am aware of. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHuuW8HySk

When Curles' crew has already been suspended for bad calls that hurt Arkansas in a big game, he's going to really catch grief for making a call that it seems other SEC crews are not calling.

[JasonTX]

I think the problem Arkansas fans are having is with the discretion as to what is a flagrant hit that deserves an ejection and suspension. From the rule posted in the OP I agree Wade should have been ejected. However, that doesn't seem to be what officialls normally do. In addition to the video AH posted, below are two other instances from SEC games this year that seem to also deserve ejections according to the rules stated by the SEC about Wade, yet neither one even drew a flag. It's odd that all three of these plays were allowed to go and did not bring an ejection, yet this one play by the Arkansas player suddenly did. It doesn't help that Curles' crew was suspended after missing some calls against Arkansas in a game two years ago, so most Arkansas automatically distrust him.

Helmet-to-helmet, with no flag -


And then this one is almost exactly the same as the play Wade is ejected for, but not ejection that I am aware of. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHuuW8HySk

When Curles' crew has already been suspended for bad calls that hurt Arkansas in a big game, he's going to really catch grief for making a call that it seems other SEC crews are not calling.

I'm not seeing a personal foul in the video.  KCI, yes, but not a personal foul.  The team B player comes in below the shoulders and doesn't hit with the crown of his helmet.  As for the comments regarding Curles'.  You have to remember that Curles is not the one throwing the flag on the play in the OP.  There is a good chance that the officials throwing the flag are not the same ones who was on his crew 2 years ago. 

[Lash]

I'm not seeing a personal foul in the video.  KCI, yes, but not a personal foul.  The team B player comes in below the shoulders and doesn't hit with the crown of his helmet.  As for the comments regarding Curles'.  You have to remember that Curles is not the one throwing the flag on the play in the OP.  There is a good chance that the officials throwing the flag are not the same ones who was on his crew 2 years ago.

I guess we just see it differently, it seems pretty clear to me that he lead with the crown of his helmet into the Florida player's chest.

From the original post...

Wade was properly ejected for a flagrant foul becase he 1) targeted a defenseless player and 2) led with the crown of his helmet.  The second one being the major reason for the ejection

It seems like the Alabama player should have been ejected, since he falls into same two categories as Wade.

As far as Curles, I understand what you're saying and I am not trying to imply anything about him, I'm just sharing the thought among many Arkansas fans, to help you see where they are coming from. I am not saying I agree, just that this opinion is where many fans are coming from. You also have to understand a lot of Arkansas fans(I am not in this group) are convinced of a conspiracy among SEC officials to protect Bama, Florida, and teams in a NC hunt and to hurt Arkansas. There are some pretty major occurrences that have led to this thought and while I understand the explanation for each one, it has still led to many Arkansas fans distrusting SEC officials. And it was Curles who failed to throw a flag on the helmet-to-helmet hit on Tyler Wilson shown above, which also does not help things.

[TXMike]

A still photo is useless for making a judgment about a helmet to helmet call/no-call.  Helmets hit all the time and that does not mean it is a foul.  We have to judge if the helmet was deliberately used to first contact the opponent.  Can't do that with a snapshot.   

Attacking a punt returner is different than attacking a ball carrier.  And players who are engaged in attacking punt returners (especially those who are returners themselves) should know there is extra protection given and gauge their actions accordingly

[Lash]

A still photo is useless for making a judgment about a helmet to helmet call/no-call.  Helmets hit all the time and that does not mean it is a foul.  We have to judge if the helmet was deliberately used to first contact the opponent.  Can't do that with a snapshot.   

Attacking a punt returner is different than attacking a ball carrier.  And players who are engaged in attacking punt returners (especially those who are returners themselves) should know there is extra protection given and gauge their actions accordingly

Again, we can agree to disagree on the helmet to helmet, it's over and done.

But on the punt return, I don't see any difference between the Alabama player and the Arkansas player. I don't see how the Bama player wasn't ejected, much less suspended.

Thanks for the sophomoric Arkansas joke though, that helps things. Definitely gives credence to your opinion. 

[Mike L]

I think the problem Arkansas fans are having is with the discretion as to what is a flagrant hit that deserves an ejection and suspension.

And then this one is almost exactly the same as the play Wade is ejected for, but not ejection that I am aware of.

Making calls off still photos is extremely unreliable. This looks like it could, COULD, be a foul. And not knowing when this photo was taken, it may not have been a foul at all at the time. This type of action, and what is or is not to be called as a foul, is relatively new and still changing.
Anyone looking at the Wade hit and your post could only unbiasedly say the two are almost exactly same because both involve KCI. The Wade hit is much more violent. Violence of the action is a huge consideration regarding flagrancy. Wade deserved to be tossed, no question.

The problem Arkansas fans have is they are Arkansas fans. Of course they see it the way they want to see it, that is in favor of their team. Just like Alabama fans see it, just like Florida fans see it, and just like any team's fans see it. The officials are the only ones out there who are (hopefully) unbiased and see it the way it is.

[zebra99]

Lash - I understand from a fan's point of view it's difficult for them to grasp the concept that officiating is not an exact science.  Reviewing videos frame-by-frame is always revealing but doesn't always appear to be what actually happens.

On the field these players are going so fast and contact happens so quickly, players run in front of us and MOST importantly we never get the camera eye view.  We have to make judgments in an instant and everyone expects us to be perfect then improve from there.

And, I'm sure you understand that fans to have built in biases, that's why they are called fans!  No matter what non-officials think or want to think, officials at this level truly are completely unbiased, have no dog in the hunt, and if they mess up too often, suffer embarrassing consequences.

Because of your obvious interest in officiating, you really should try it sometime - it's a great and fun avocation!!

[busman]

You've got to remember, Mike, we Arkansans have a long history of being the victim of questionable officiating.  We played for years in a league with 80% of the officials were Texans.  We still get mad when discussing James Street's TD run aided by two uncalled block in the back penalties in the 1969 National championship game and the phantom pass interference call in favor of the SMU Pony Express in Texas Stadium in 1980. Our SEC bias starts in 1955 with Tommy Bell's bogus field goal call in an Ole Miss game and includes an offensive holding penalty that negated a field goal in the Liberty Bowl against Tennessee in the 80's.

[Lash]

Making calls off still photos is extremely unreliable. This looks like it could, COULD, be a foul. And not knowing when this photo was taken, it may not have been a foul at all at the time. This type of action, and what is or is not to be called as a foul, is relatively new and still changing.
Anyone looking at the Wade hit and your post could only unbiasedly say the two are almost exactly same because both involve KCI. The Wade hit is much more violent. Violence of the action is a huge consideration regarding flagrancy. Wade deserved to be tossed, no question.

The problem Arkansas fans have is they are Arkansas fans. Of course they see it the way they want to see it, that is in favor of their team. Just like Alabama fans see it, just like Florida fans see it, and just like any team's fans see it. The officials are the only ones out there who are (hopefully) unbiased and see it the way it is.

I'm confused by this comment about the still photo, I'm curious in what situation it would not be a foul to make contact with the QB's helmet with your own helmet. I can't think of a situation where that should not be a foul.

As to your last paragraph, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. I and many other Arkansas fans I have talked to understand and agree with the call on Wade. It's the numerous other examples of plays that seem to fall under the same rule but were not enforced that we have trouble with.

Lash - I understand from a fan's point of view it's difficult for them to grasp the concept that officiating is not an exact science.  Reviewing videos frame-by-frame is always revealing but doesn't always appear to be what actually happens.

On the field these players are going so fast and contact happens so quickly, players run in front of us and MOST importantly we never get the camera eye view.  We have to make judgments in an instant and everyone expects us to be perfect then improve from there.

And, I'm sure you understand that fans to have built in biases, that's why they are called fans!  No matter what non-officials think or want to think, officials at this level truly are completely unbiased, have no dog in the hunt, and if they mess up too often, suffer embarrassing consequences.

Because of your obvious interest in officiating, you really should try it sometime - it's a great and fun avocation!!

I understand the point about it happening fast, and I'm sure that is the case in most of these instances. It is refreshing to hear you say this, it seems most officials share the opinion of TXMike that the officials calls are always right. I don't understand why so many have a hard time admitting that it is tough to make a quick decision and many time HUMAN officials get it wrong. That's not a criticism of officials as a whole, just a fact of life when dealing with humans who have to make very quick decisions.

[TXMike]

As to your last paragraph, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. I and many other Arkansas fans I have talked to understand and agree with the call on Wade. It's the numerous other examples of plays that seem to fall under the same rule but were not enforced that we have trouble with.
I understand the point about it happening fast, and I'm sure that is the case in most of these instances. It is refreshing to hear you say this, it seems most officials share the opinion of TXMike that the officials calls are always right. I don't understand why so many have a hard time admitting that it is tough to make a quick decision and many time HUMAN officials get it wrong. That's not a criticism of officials as a whole, just a fact of life when dealing with humans who have to make very quick decisions.
The only volumes that says is that I don't care about other games as much as I care about hogs games, so I don't pay as much attention to what officials have to say about a game I didn't watch. Assuming anything else is a mistake on your part, but it wouldn't surprise me from what I have seen so far.

Do you pay attention?  Have you ever even played football?  Helmets hit all that time.  That fact that they do does not automatically mean there has been a foul.  That is why the still photo you gave is useless.  Give us the video of that play.

Just because other players have not been ejected for what YOU perceive to be as serious a foul mwans nothing to the discussion. Perhaps the officials erred. In fact, for the past several years there has been more and more emphasis from above saying just that, there should be more ejections.  Your guy fouled, he was ejected, and now he is suspended.  For his sake we can only hope that is the end of it and someone does not seek retribution down the line.

[TxSkyBolt]

I'm confused by this comment about the still photo, I'm curious in what situation it would not be a foul to make contact with the QB's helmet with your own helmet. I can't think of a situation where that should not be a foul.

Let's see, he could have been illegally blocked from behind into the QB, or he could've started the hit at the chest with his shoulder and riden up to this still photo. Point is you cannot tell what led to a still photo, so while inflamatory, it proves nothing.

Best regards,

Brad

[Mike L]

I'm confused by this comment about the still photo, I'm curious in what situation it would not be a foul to make contact with the QB's helmet with your own helmet. I can't think of a situation where that should not be a foul.

As to your last paragraph, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. I and many other Arkansas fans I have talked to understand and agree with the call on Wade. It's the numerous other examples of plays that seem to fall under the same rule but were not enforced that we have trouble with.

The first part already answered by another. All I can say for the second part is if you and the other Arkansas fans think the clip you gave seems to come close to matching the Wade hit in severity and thus flagrancy, then it is clear to me you are biased in your evaluation. Which is ok because you are a fan and not an official.

Perhaps it's time to fully embrace the advise of my instructor when confronted with such questions and simply tell you "I saw the action and in your example although it is a foul it does not rise to the level of flagrancy and ejection. The Wade hit it does."

[Lash]

Let's see, he could have been illegally blocked from behind into the QB, or he could've started the hit at the chest with his shoulder and riden up to this still photo. Point is you cannot tell what led to a still photo, so while inflamatory, it proves nothing.

Best regards,

Brad

Thanks, that's what I was asking and even though I'm pretty sure none of those are the case I understand what you are saying as far as the still picture. I have tried to find a video but can't locate that play anywhere.