Texas vs A&M

[TXMike]

A professor has done a scientific analysis of the hit:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSWosoQg8w

[WCFB]

A professor has done a scientific analysis of the hit:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSWosoQg8w

[mbyron]

What a hoot! Yeah, officials need to learn some physics! Ha!

Oh, should we point out Dr. Noah's errors? That pounds are NOT a unit of mass? That therefore they cannot be used to calculate momentum? That claims of an "inevitable collision" ignore the fact that players can stop themselves? That in any case the inevitability of a collision does not entail illegal helmet contact?

I have a PhD too, but it's not in second guessing. 

[Grant - AR]

I have a PhD too, but it's not in second guessing. 

 

[BankerRef]

What a hoot! Yeah, officials need to learn some physics! Ha!

Oh, should we point out Dr. Noah's errors? That pounds are NOT a unit of mass? That therefore they cannot be used to calculate momentum? That claims of an "inevitable collision" ignore the fact that players can stop themselves? That in any case the inevitability of a collision does not entail illegal helmet contact?

I have a PhD too, but it's not in second guessing. 

No PhD here, but for simplicity sake I have no problem with his use of pounds instead of Kgs.  It is pretty comical but his point that it was going to take a lot of force to overcome the momentum involved and avoid a collision altogether is not lost on me.

Just my opinion, but if no flag had been thrown on this I seriously doubt we would have very many if any posting video and getting on here to say how bad it was that they missed the call.  It just wasn't that obvious or blatant when seen in real time.

[TXMike]

the Doc's bio:

Bio

Dr. Noah Dean is a Texas native who is deeply involved in the world of fitness, health, and wellness. He has a M.S. in Kinesiology from Angelo State University and a Ph.D. in Motor Neuroscience from Texas A&M University. In 2009 he became a certified personal trainer through the American College of Sports Medicine.
 
Much of Dr. Dean's wisdom comes from his dynamic background. He has worked as a self-defense instructor, hurdles coach, actor, bar tender, writer, personal wellness trainer, and stuntman (NBC series Friday Night Lights). Dr. Dean now works as a full time assistant professor of Kinesiology and part-time wellness trainer/instructor.

[psv]

Just my opinion, but if no flag had been thrown on this I seriously doubt we would have very many if any posting video and getting on here to say how bad it was that they missed the call.  It just wasn't that obvious or blatant when seen in real time.

Yep.  There wouldnt be any discussion about it at all.

[BankerRef]

4. Does the player intentionally hit him with his helmet or is he trying to avoid contact.  With this little time to react it's hard to say either way.

Even if you can't be certain that " .... the player intentionally hit him with his helmet or is he trying to avoid contact."  it really doesn't matter, rule 9-1-3 is clear that this requires a flag.

I think 9-1-3 could apply here but, unlike NVFOA, in my opinion it does matter and requires intent.  9-1-3 and 4 both say "no player shall target and initiate".  What is target?  The point of emphasis on FR-8 clears it up for me in that "targeted" contact is interchangable with "intentional".  To me it looks like the defender is attempting to avoid contact.  In any case he certainly didn't launch himself to "light him up" as he could have and the fact the top of his helmet made any contact at all is a result of the height difference and the receiver leaning in, not intent.

I don't think 9-1-4 applies at all because I would question if the receiver meets the defenseless player definition.  If you conclude, as many of you have, and argue that the defender had the ability to avoid contact after the catch is not made, would you not conclude that the receiver also has the ability to avoid contact.  It is clear that his concentration is no longer on catching the pass just as the defender is clearly no longer attempting to make a tackle or deliver a hit.

This is still football and contact is often unavoidable.  This contact is not malicious nor dangerous and I personally don't think it is the kind of contact the rulesmakers were trying to get out of the game.  I don't care what the game situation is this one stays in my pocket.  For the official that made the call though, he can always hang his hat on the "when in question" aspect as it relates to the intent.

[Mike L]

I think he's hanging his hat on the defender comes in head up until right before contact and then lowers with his crown hitting the A player's helmet. It's a foul the powers that be want called. Too many still seem to want to wait until the hit player is on the ground knocked senseless before thinking about making this call. It's where the game is going, get used to it or you might end up on a supervisor tape like the one I heard where in frustration he says "I don't understand why we continue to miss this call". I'm beginning to think perhaps it's not being missed as much as too many officials won't make it.

[BankerRef]

Mike L; Are you saying that you conclude the contact was intentional because the defender dipped his head slightly?  If he hadn't ducked a little and the two players still bumped helmets is the call the same?

[110]

I see why it might have been called but man, I think a quiet word is the best option.

Sent from my MID7016 using Tapatalk

[NoVaBJ]

. . . this was NOT a foul. . . .

Balderdash, batsqueeze, and rot.  The illustrated play is a foul under wither NFHS or NCAA codes and regardless of the game situation.

[WCFB]

From the angle of the calling official this is a penalty. His view from the field of play he is perpendicular to the B player and makes his call. I dont agree with it because i get to see it from the camera and different angles. I can see why his flag comes out. I am sure he would agree with many of the posts on here after watching the replay as we all have done.