« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Hawaii Bowl Altercation  (Read 10658 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« on: December 25, 2011, 09:13:29 AM »
Logged

110

  • Guest
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2011, 09:17:19 AM »
Looked like it was raining yeller hankies.
Logged

MJT

  • Guest
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2011, 10:24:11 AM »
The receiver starts the whole thing with his taunting.  ^flag   Easy to say on my couch, but if the S had a flag immediately with the taunting and been very vocal to split them up as he threw his flag, I think the entire thing could have been avoided. I don't have a problem with the the 2 UNR's, but there should have been a UNS on the receiver for sure.  ^flag

It will be interesting to see if the leagues take any further action.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2011, 10:35:38 AM by MJT »
Logged

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2011, 09:00:04 PM »
Was #11 for USM ejected for leaving the bench area? He should have been.
Logged
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

CA Ref

  • Guest
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2011, 10:33:30 AM »
I totally agree about the actions of #11. If he is a returning player CUSA can make a strong statement by issuing a one game suspension. All too often we see these situation in the lower to mid level bowl games where the players have little to lose since there collegiate career is over.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2011, 11:17:10 AM »
USM #11 = Furious Bradley  a redshirt Fr DB.

A quote after the CUSA championship game:

"I try to play up to my name," Bradley said. "My grandmama named me. She got the name from the movie 'Boyz N the Hood.' I have a furious attitude when I am on the field. You have to when you play cornerback."
Logged

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2011, 11:38:00 AM »
Eject #11 for what?  He never participated in the fight.  Sure a USC foul for leaving the bench, UNLESS he participated in the try, in which case he was allowed to leave trhe bench and enter the field.

But his actions didn't even come close to an ejectable or suspendable offense.  #8 from Nevada throws a punch and gets to stay and you want to eject #11?  Wow.
Logged

CA Ref

  • Guest
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2011, 12:05:58 PM »
I totally agree that #8 should have been ejected and I should have included that in my earlier post. I also agree that by rule #11 is not ejected for simply leaving the bench. My point is what is his purpose for "sprinting" to the EZ? Action by CUSA would send a message through out the country.
Logged

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2011, 12:26:53 PM »
Quote from: Atlanta Blue on December 26, 2011, 11:38:00 AM
Eject #11 for what?  He never participated in the fight.  Sure a USC foul for leaving the bench, UNLESS he participated in the try, in which case he was allowed to leave trhe bench and enter the field.

But his actions didn't even come close to an ejectable or suspendable offense.  #8 from Nevada throws a punch and gets to stay and you want to eject #11?  Wow.
Where I did say #8 should not have been ejected? All I asked about was #11. Do you really believe a player running 30 yards from the team box, past a coach trying to stop him and a teammate, and directly towards an end zone scuffle with HELMET IN HAND, is coming in to participate in the try?  ::) All he is trying to do is incite. See 9-2-1.

+1 CA Ref
Logged
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2011, 12:51:43 PM »
Quote from: Rulesman on December 26, 2011, 12:26:53 PM
Where I did say #8 should not have been ejected? All I asked about was #11. Do you really believe a player running 30 yards from the team box, past a coach trying to stop him and a teammate, and directly towards an end zone scuffle with HELMET IN HAND, is coming in to participate in the try?  ::) All he is trying to do is incite. See 9-2-1.

+1 CA Ref

I've read 9-2-1, many times over.  And nothing that #11 did rises above a USC foul.  He put on his helmet before reaching the crowd, and did NOTHING, as the scuffle was breaking up as he got there.

And yes, if he stayed and participated in the try, his actions were perfectly legal and don't even draw the USC flag.  I was involved in one of these reviews earlier this season.  UGA scored a TD and there was an excessive celebration foul for players leaving the bench area.  Replay asked for my help in determining a) who was legally on the field for the TD play, b) who was legally on the field for the try, and c) who on the field during the celebration wasn't on either of those two teams, and was therefore illegal.  The reason for having to have the numbers was in case they did it a SECOND time, which would be an ejection and suspension.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2011, 12:59:50 PM »
Why would there be a suspension?
Logged

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2011, 02:15:00 PM »
Quote from: TXMike on December 26, 2011, 12:59:50 PM
Why would there be a suspension?

People above (CA Ref) called for one, and others (Rulesman) agreed with him (+1).
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2011, 02:34:25 PM »
I was referring to your game.
Logged

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2011, 04:25:00 PM »
Quote from: TXMike on December 26, 2011, 02:34:25 PM
I was referring to your game.

A second USC foul is an ejection.  The SEC automatically suspends ejected players for a minimum of one half of the next game.
Logged

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 2985
  • FAN REACTION: +113/-59
Re: Hawaii Bowl Altercation
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2011, 07:19:10 PM »
#12 made him a pretty good catch of the flag.  I was surprised he didn't throw it back in the air. 
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »