Author Topic: Whatcha got? (Read 14508 times)

SouthGARef · « **on:** September 14, 2016, 09:57:14 PM »

B28 during the return. What say you?

NOTE: Don't know what happened to the audio during export from Premiere Pro to YouTube. So no audio.

Ironhead17 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 15, 2016, 06:29:58 AM »

Take some B-12 and try again.

Atlanta Blue · « **Reply #2 on:** September 15, 2016, 06:35:45 AM »

Quote from: SouthGARef on September 14, 2016, 09:57:14 PM

B28 during the return. What say you?

The answer is "Tuesday".

Quote

NOTE: Don't know what happened to the audio during export from Premiere Pro to YouTube. So no audio.

No video either.

SouthGARef · « **Reply #3 on:** September 15, 2016, 08:49:00 AM »

whoops. Video:

https://youtu.be/Nx89Xc1zA0s

Curious · « **Reply #4 on:** September 15, 2016, 09:23:40 AM »

I have nothing here but a good block. It MIGHT be a little behind the play; but not enough to warrant a flag IMHO.

Atlanta Blue · « **Reply #5 on:** September 15, 2016, 10:56:45 AM »

Got a few things:

1. Really bad decision making by the QB. Never throw late down the middle!
2. Really bad decision making by the QB's coach for ordering such hideous uniforms/helmets for his team.
3. Bad tackling techniques by both teams.

But I don't have a foul on B28. Yes, he wound up and put a shoulder into the chaser, but it was still close to the play, and he didn't go to the head.

sir55 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 15, 2016, 11:03:35 AM »

Targeting. He launches and makes helmet to helmet contact. He could have accomplished the block by going to the chest or below the shoulders. He is responsible for not going to the head of the player.

Atlanta Blue · « **Reply #7 on:** September 15, 2016, 11:11:59 AM »

Quote from: sir55 on September 15, 2016, 11:03:35 AM

Targeting. He launches and makes helmet to helmet contact. He could have accomplished the block by going to the chest or below the shoulders. He is responsible for not going to the head of the player.

That contact doesn't come within a foot of his head:

bama_stripes · « **Reply #8 on:** September 15, 2016, 11:26:09 AM »

No foul. And I agree with AB about the uniforms -- 100% ugly.

SouthGARef · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2016, 11:30:18 AM »

Posted because I'm inclined to agree that he doesn't hit him in the helmet. I just want this type of hit removed from the game, and since we were talking about the BSB rule last night it got me thinking about it.

jason · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2016, 12:41:46 PM »

No foul. What part of this do you want taken out? Do you want defenseless players to be completely off-limits?

SouthGARef · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2016, 01:37:16 PM »

Quote from: jason on September 15, 2016, 12:41:46 PM

No foul. What part of this do you want taken out? Do you want defenseless players to be completely off-limits?

I think the Hawaii rule is very fair. The blocker could've removed his opponent from the play entirely with a two handed shove to the side.

sir55 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2016, 01:45:50 PM »

I don't know what video you are watching, but at 1:01/1:02, the blocker goes low and launches at the player, his helmet hits the players face mask and then his helmet. From the launch and hit at and above the shoulders, this is targeting.

Ironhead17 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 15, 2016, 02:15:02 PM »

I agree to an extent. He does dip to initiate contact but he uses his forearm and shoulder to de-cleat the unsuspecting chaser. The contact to the helmet is minimal IMO. Not severe enough to warrant targeting. Close w/ potential but not there.

riffraft · « **Reply #14 on:** September 15, 2016, 02:21:33 PM »

Quote from: SouthGARef on September 15, 2016, 01:37:16 PM

I think the Hawaii rule is very fair. The blocker could've removed his opponent from the play entirely with a two handed shove to the side.

In AZ, part of the rule includes whether the player blocked had a reasonable ability to see the blocker coming. From the various angles, it looks like the player didn't have a reasonable chance to see the blocker, so this, I believe would be an illegal blindside block in Arizona this year.

WingOfficial · « **Reply #15 on:** September 15, 2016, 02:29:04 PM »

In Oregon, we could get this as a Blindside Block. A player's attention is elsewhere, blocker comes in from the side and launches/thrusts upward on a defenseless player. 15 yards.

NewEra1005 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 16, 2016, 10:53:42 AM »

Targeting!

He takes aim at a defenseless player with his shoulder above the shoulders.

I would also like to see this play never happen again. Some of the worst injuries happen on plays like this.

Logical · « **Reply #17 on:** September 20, 2016, 12:05:12 AM »

Unlike the other thread where I have no doubt is a foul:
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=12840.0
I have nothing on this one.
Look at the EZ view (:53); #28 white is stationary; he dips low to get chest then thrusts up but except for that, all the momentum is from green.
A launch is leaving feet - that's not here. I don't see targeting above shoulders - seems the target was the chest.

The Roamin' Umpire · « **Reply #18 on:** September 20, 2016, 08:01:27 AM »

Nothing. Green player sees the hit coming, and it's not delivered with anything like excessive force.

BoBo · « **Reply #19 on:** September 20, 2016, 10:56:15 PM »

No FLAG from me

Ted T · « **Reply #20 on:** September 25, 2016, 06:31:21 PM »

Casebook would indicate that this would likely be a foul.

Ref: 2016 NFHS Case Book; p 75; 9.4.3 Situation A is a similar type of play with Comment.