« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Serious DPI  (Read 10169 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
Serious DPI
« on: November 15, 2010, 01:52:02 AM »
We all know you can have DPI that is also a PF but I don't think we often see it.
I wonder about calling a horse collar foul when the foulee is not the ball carrier.  By rule I don't think you can do that. Wonder about "by intent of rule".
[yt=425,350]5k-cnuUTKes[/yt]
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 01:53:53 AM by TXMike »
Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3418
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2010, 02:00:53 AM »
The intent of the HC foul is to protect the legs of a player - I don't see a leg issue here.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2010, 02:08:40 AM »
If this same action had ocurred with an airborne ball carrier would you flag?
Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3418
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2010, 02:18:17 AM »
With the rule as it is written, and as it is a safety foul, I'd have to flag it if it's against an airborne ball carrier.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2010, 02:21:52 AM »
Then don't use the "it ain't the legs" defense, counselor.     >:D
Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3418
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2010, 02:26:40 AM »
It ain't against the ball carrier, sir! :)
Logged

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2010, 05:57:27 AM »
Quote from: Kalle on November 15, 2010, 02:00:53 AM
The intent of the HC foul is to protect the legs of a player - I don't see a leg issue here.


There is of course absolutely nothing dangerous about pulling an airborne opponent so that he lands on his head.
Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3418
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2010, 06:05:55 AM »
Quote from: Osric Pureheart on November 15, 2010, 05:57:27 AM
There is of course absolutely nothing dangerous about pulling an airborne opponent so that he lands on his head.

I didn't say that there isn't anything dangerous, but the rules makers haven't so far addressed any such tackle where the (airborne) player lands on his head.
Logged

110

  • Guest
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2010, 06:20:53 AM »
I'd have no qualms with an official that tacked on 15 to this. Not in the least. That is clearly roughness that is un-necessary.
Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3418
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2010, 06:30:48 AM »
I'm not sure if I'd personally flag this particular situation as a PF (I'm notoriously lenient on the field) but would support it, with the general unnecessary roughness clause.
Logged

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1860
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2010, 09:26:06 AM »
Quote from: Livin' in the pit on November 15, 2010, 06:20:53 AM
I'd have no qualms with an official that tacked on 15 to this. Not in the least. That is clearly roughness that is un-necessary.

The problem is in NCAA rules, you can't.  This isn't a dead-ball foul, so you either apply the DPI or the PF as you can only have one accepted live ball foul.
Logged

chymechowder

  • Guest
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2010, 10:11:38 AM »
Looking at the replay, I dont think this is a PF.

The defender was beat.  The receiver slowed down and jumped for the ball. Now the defender is beat (again!); he's airborn and going past the receiver.  I think he just went for a desperate pull to prevent the catch. Unfortunately, given their respective altitudes and the angles of their bodies, the receiver's collar is what he got.

Intentional DPI. But no malicious intent, imo.
Logged

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • FAN REACTION: +36/-50
Re: Serious DPI
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2010, 08:45:18 PM »
Looks like the FED rules have a "better idea" on this type of play - allowing officials to call an additional penalty ("intentional interference")!

Rule 7-5-10(Penalty) certainly appears appropriate here!
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »