Clean hit or foul? #2

[Sumstine]

Keep an eye on the #2 receiver at the top of the screen.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8670922/23502853

[Grant - AR]

 

[Etref]

And while he is strutting over the guy proud of his knockdown the winning TD runs right by him.


Aint' Karma a Bi*%$

[110]

Holy crap. Totally un-necessary spear, crown of helmet, the whole nine 15 yards.
Had I been the one to toss said flag, and I sure hope that if this were my key, I would be, then I'd be jogging right slow to the white cap as I pondered whether to eject the DB or not. I consider it that severe from the video angles.

[Grant - AR]

Assuming this is a 7-man crew (I didn't see a B in the video), this player is the B's key.  When the hit occurs, the pass has just been caught.  If the officials are going with the coverage of "man, zone, ball", they have all switched to the pass and these players are no longer being watched/keyed on.  I'm afraid this might be a situation where one official sees a hit out of the corner of his eye, but he isn't sure of exactly what happened.

This would definitely be a great opportunity for the conference to review the play and take action after the fact.

[JasonTX]

Assuming this is a 7-man crew (I didn't see a B in the video), this player is the B's key.  When the hit occurs, the pass has just been caught.  If the officials are going with the coverage of "man, zone, ball", they have all switched to the pass and these players are no longer being watched/keyed on.  I'm afraid this might be a situation where one official sees a hit out of the corner of his eye, but he isn't sure of exactly what happened.

This would definitely be a great opportunity for the conference to review the play and take action after the fact.

I still think the B would pick this up.  We stick with "man" a little longer that in the past until the players are no longer a real threat to be fouled or to foul themselves.  By staying in "man" longer we won't miss the stuff that happens during the transition to zone.

[James]

Maybe my screen resolution isn't good enough, but I definitely can't see what he him with - the 'crown of the helmet' or forearm or what.

Just to play devils advocate - the receiver was still in a position to block the safety, so I would see a hard hit as such from the safety as being OK - he would be trying to get through the potential blocker to the ball carrier.

With how the video shows up on my screen I can not see anything illegal. It looks hard, and maybe high, but I can't tell from the video.

[TXMike]

Got nothing, except for a dumarse DB.  Way to take yourself outta the play.  The hit looked very violent.  If it had been to the head at that speed I doubt the WR would have popped right up like he did.  I also diosagree with the title of the video "away from the play".  It was right where the play was coming.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Looks to me that he hits him with a double forearm shot head high (but the quality of the video makes you guess a bit).  I'd support the flag in any case here.  If he wants to take out the "blocker" a body/shoulder shot does that.  No need for head hunting with forearm shot to the facemask.   

[bama_stripes]

Fits my personal definition of "unnecessary roughness".

[MJT]

Fits my personal definition of "unnecessary roughness".

My thought exactly, UNR!!

[NoVaBJ]

Unlike the video in the other thread, there's no doubt about whether contact was initiated with the helmet. Foul by B6, fifteen for illegal helmet contact.

[TXMike]

We "see" things differently.   I don't see the contact initiated with the helmet.

[twref]

Really tough get-but if you could I'd be going with UR.  I believe at all levels "the powers that be" want this type of play taken out of football.  The game is violent enough without this crap and until we consistently enforce the PF Excessive Contact above the Shoulder and/or UR Coaches won't teach kids to avoid this type of play.  Just one guys opinion.