« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl  (Read 11316 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-268
  • When you quit learning you quit living
High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« on: December 23, 2010, 10:00:06 AM »
This generated some discussion in the chatroom last night.  Looked like accidental helmet contact to me but I was outvoted.

[yt=425,350]uyWNJN4kpVc[/yt]
Logged

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 295
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-4
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2010, 11:10:36 AM »
Didnt look accidental to me.  ^flag
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-268
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2010, 11:14:57 AM »
I just now noticed....how about B34's signal ? ? ?
Logged

Offline BC70

  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2010, 11:25:55 AM »
Hit was too high.  A little bit lower and you have a good block.
Logged

Diablo

  • Guest
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2010, 11:29:12 AM »
Quote from: TXMike on December 23, 2010, 11:14:57 AM
I just now noticed....how about B34's signal ? ? ?

He is not waving.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-268
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2010, 11:30:04 AM »
Here we go again....what do you mean by "high"? A pursuing potential tackler can't be hit in the shoulder?
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-268
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2010, 11:35:55 AM »
It has to be a wave?looks like an invalid fc signal to me
Logged

Diablo

  • Guest
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2010, 11:41:53 AM »
Quote from: TXMike on December 23, 2010, 11:35:55 AM
It has to be a wave?looks like an invalid fc signal to me

"Waving" was added to the definition of an invalid signal in '09.
Are you still a B?  nAnA
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-268
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2010, 11:43:04 AM »
Ok. Unsportsmanlike conduct then for pointing at Heaven.

And who among us will allow the punt returner to advance with the ball after he puts one hand straight up over his head and holds it there momentarily before catching the punt?

I believe the intent of that change was to stop guys from calling it an invalid signal when one returner pointed at the other to let him know he was expecting the other fellow to catch the kick.  Pointing as technically a "signal" and some guys had been calling that an invalid signal, a la the "get away" signal.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 12:11:05 PM by TXMike »
Logged

Diablo

  • Guest
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2010, 01:10:21 PM »
Quote from: TXMike on December 23, 2010, 11:43:04 AM
And who among us will allow the punt returner to advance with the ball after he puts one hand straight up over his head and holds it there momentarily before catching the punt?

I believe the intent of that change was to stop guys from calling it an invalid signal when one returner pointed at the other to let him know he was expecting the other fellow to catch the kick.  Pointing as technically a "signal" and some guys had been calling that an invalid signal, a la the "get away" signal.

In the context of a punt, I would not the punt receiver advance the kick after pointing at the heavens/Heavens.  But in a free kick situation, I would.

My understanding of the reason for the editorial addition is to allow a member of the free kick receiving team to signal the free kick returner and his teammates where to come together for focused blocking, aka wedge in 2009.
Logged

Offline RedTD

  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-2
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2010, 01:32:50 PM »
I'm not sure you can have "accidental" helmet contact in this play. The BSU player is not a runner who ducks just prior to contact. The Ute player either hit him in/with the helmet (foul) or didn't (no foul). I am not sure the hit was to/with the helmet. In HD it might be clearer. On this one I would go with whatever was called (if it was even seen). How's that for feeling strongly both ways? ;D

On Free Kick I'd let 34's signal go.

Did anyone in the chat room bring up the kerchief sticking out of the Ute QB's helmet ? I thought we had pretty much cleaned that up several years ago.
Logged

PSK

  • Guest
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2010, 02:08:01 PM »
Quote from: mccormicw on December 23, 2010, 11:10:36 AM
Didnt look accidental to me.  ^flag

Me neither.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-268
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2010, 02:19:26 PM »
Quote from: RedTD on December 23, 2010, 01:32:50 PM
I'm not sure you can have "accidental" helmet contact in this play. The BSU player is not a runner who ducks just prior to contact. The Ute player either hit him in/with the helmet (foul) or didn't (no foul). I am not sure the hit was to/with the helmet. In HD it might be clearer. On this one I would go with whatever was called (if it was even seen). How's that for feeling strongly both ways? ;D

On Free Kick I'd let 34's signal go.

Did anyone in the chat room bring up the kerchief sticking out of the Ute QB's helmet ? I thought we had pretty much cleaned that up several years ago.
It was mentioned.  My take is "it looked like his hair." 
Logged

MJT

  • Guest
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2010, 07:40:03 PM »
Hit looks like a foul to me. I'm sure it would be supported by my supervisor. He was lining the guy up for 10 yds and could have easily hit him lower and had the same affect.  ^flag  I wouldn't have anything on #34's signal as he is 15 yards from where the ball comes down and seems to just be signaling "we're going right."
Logged

fbrefga

  • Guest
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2010, 10:15:59 AM »
TXMike, I'll agree with you on this.

The Utah player did not use the crown of his helmet.  The Boise State player was running and had his upper body leaning forward as he was running; thus lowering his head somewhat.  It appears that his facemask hits either the lower side of the blocker's helmet and possibly the shoulder pad of the blocker.  The blockee was probably more surprised by the hit since he did not see it coming.
Logged

Offline BC70

  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2010, 10:42:10 AM »
That was the issue that I had, in that he was lining him for 10 yards
Logged

MJT

  • Guest
Re: High Hit ? in MAACO Bowl
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2010, 05:20:55 PM »
Quote from: BC70 on December 24, 2010, 10:42:10 AM
That was the issue that I had, in that he was lining him for 10 yards

Yes, and that is where targeting can come into play!! I guarantee you it would be supported by my supervisor, as it was emphasized greatly that if we error on these, they want us to error on the side of safety, and have a flag on the ground.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!!!!!
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »