Posted:
#51
I bet you think Clemson could beat Bama
LOL
0
IF you guys dont think the SEC was trying to protect Alabama, well, then you are just stupid
btw
Posted:
#54
Quote Originally Posted by Boom_Boom:
If they hit at the same time then yes.....its out. But they dont hit at the same time.... the Toe hits First.
Learn the Rules
If they hit at the same time then yes.....its out. But they dont hit at the same time.... the Toe hits First.
Learn the Rules
wrong again...you really should check the rules bro before you spout off calling me names.
not sure why you got so mad at me, but you are 100% wrong.
0
Posted:
#56
Quote Originally Posted by Boom_Boom:
His toe was in first before his heel hits out of bounds. It's not a play where both hit at the same time.....
so YES he was in Bounds.
Sims dont tell me I need to know the rules Jack ass... I know the Rules.
IF his Foot ( Toe ) hits before the heel hits then he is in bounds.
my goodness
His toe was in first before his heel hits out of bounds. It's not a play where both hit at the same time.....
so YES he was in Bounds.
Sims dont tell me I need to know the rules Jack ass... I know the Rules.
IF his Foot ( Toe ) hits before the heel hits then he is in bounds.
my goodness didn't see this unit now...really boom. if someone disagrees, this is how you respond...name calling and emoticons. now that you know you are wrong (if you don't, look up the rules), i hope this childishness embarrasses you.
i didn't expect this bro.
0
Posted:
#57
Quote Originally Posted by Boom_Boom:
If they hit at the same time then yes.....its out. But they dont hit at the same time.... the Toe hits First.
Learn the Rules
If they hit at the same time then yes.....its out. But they dont hit at the same time.... the Toe hits First.
Learn the Rules
Maybe you should learn the rules? Or maybe you are right and the NCAA rule book is "stupid"?
Eligible A80 is airborne near the sideline when he receives a legal
forward pass. As he comes to the ground facing the field of play, his toe (a) clearly drags the ground inbounds before he falls out of bounds; (b) touches the ground inbounds and then his heel comes down on the sideline in a continuous motion. He maintains firm control of the ball in both cases. RULING: (a) Complete pass. (b) Incomplete pass.
The continuous toe-heel touching is part of a single process and by
interpretation he has landed out of bounds, thus not executing a catch.
0
Posted:
#59
Speaking of rules - and maybe this deserves a different thread but, while we're talking about rules and interpretation, etc. - what is the freaking RULE about this whole 'targeting' bullsh!t and 'defenseless player' bullsh!t.
I understand you can't hit a player in the head - that's a good rule, particularly in high impact situations like kicks. I understand you can't hit a player *with* your head, i.e., spearing them on any part of the body. Again, good rule - as much for the safety of the person delivering the blow as recipient of it.
But I'm seeing WAY too many calls where the player neither hits the opposing player with his head, or on the other players head, but he's still getting flagged for 'targeting' or 'unnecessary roughness' when all he did was hit a guy high (but not on head) w/ his shoulder pad, very hard. This is football, not tiddlywinks. Every time I see this call I want to rip the flat screen off the wall and throw it out the window!
Can someone please explain to me the rule? thx...
GW
0
Posted:
#60
Boom, It salmost like you have no respect for the game. Calling people stupid ? I played all 4 years fo rmy college team. I could crush most people but I have more respect for them and more importantly myself. Its always the empty can that makes th emost noise. I have lost all respect for you and before you call me a name lets agree we are on email I promise you that wouldnt happen in person. There is NO WAY you played this game in college. If you did tell me the team and I will look it up. You say you played in college yet your actions are of a 5'6 165 pound guy who never played because he has 0 respect . I have let half the nonsense go that you say. Because you say it loud doesnt make you right.
0
Posted:
#61
Quote Originally Posted by gwjtf:
Speaking of rules - and maybe this deserves a different thread but, while we're talking about rules and interpretation, etc. - what is the freaking RULE about this whole 'targeting' bullsh!t and 'defenseless player' bullsh!t.
Speaking of rules - and maybe this deserves a different thread but, while we're talking about rules and interpretation, etc. - what is the freaking RULE about this whole 'targeting' bullsh!t and 'defenseless player' bullsh!t.
I understand you can't hit a player in the head - that's a good rule, particularly in high impact situations like kicks. I understand you can't hit a player *with* your head, i.e., spearing them on any part of the body. Again, good rule - as much for the safety of the person delivering the blow as recipient of it.
But I'm seeing WAY too many calls where the player neither hits the opposing player with his head, or on the other players head, but he's still getting flagged for 'targeting' or 'unnecessary roughness' when all he did was hit a guy high (but not on head) w/ his shoulder pad, very hard. This is football, not tiddlywinks. Every time I see this call I want to rip the flat screen off the wall and throw it out the window!
Can someone please explain to me the rule? thx...
GW
You got the rule right, except that you can't target the head or neck. This is an easy call to make in slo-mo replays, but apparently the refs have a hard time telling if the hit was to the neck or below that, so they tend to error on the side of making the call when it is a vicious hit.
0
Posted:
#62
Guys...worst call I have ever seen.
Calling sims a jack ass was out of line.... a little alcohol. Sorry
Sims and I are fine tho, we been arguing along time on thigns... Nothing more.
The Rule is a horrible rule.
There is now way that should be ruled out of bounds. If you flip his foot around and he drags it then its in bounds??? Horrible call that needs changing. I can honestly say I never seen that call before in all my years.
Calling sims a jack ass was out of line.... a little alcohol. Sorry
Sims and I are fine tho, we been arguing along time on thigns... Nothing more.
The Rule is a horrible rule.
There is now way that should be ruled out of bounds. If you flip his foot around and he drags it then its in bounds??? Horrible call that needs changing. I can honestly say I never seen that call before in all my years.
0
Posted:
#63
Quote Originally Posted by Boom_Boom:
There is now way that should be ruled out of bounds. If you flip his foot around and he drags it then its in bounds??? Horrible call that needs changing. I can honestly say I never seen that call before in all my years.
There is now way that should be ruled out of bounds. If you flip his foot around and he drags it then its in bounds??? Horrible call that needs changing. I can honestly say I never seen that call before in all my years.
Except maybe he also didn't have control of the ball either? Or is the requirement that you actually catch and control the ball a bad rule too since the play occurred against an SEC team?
Sheesh. The more you open your mouth the more you show your ignorance.
0
Posted:
#67
Quote Originally Posted by Quantum_Leap:
Take a look at the SEC's schedule and how they are PROTECTING their ranked teams:
South Carolina vs. Wofford
Alabama vs. Western Carolina (did anyone else Not know there was a western carolina?)
Georgia vs. Georgia Southern
Florida vs. Jacksonville St
and watch post-Cam offensively challenged Auburn lose outright to Alabama A and M
all of these were set on 11-17. And watch them maintain their positions in the polls even with a narrow victory by Florida over Jacksonville St, or So Carolina just getting by Wofford.
Lot of bias is out there, and it's getting laughable. It is obvious they are not willing to do battle with any decent team out of conference and travel any distance. The players couldn't handle it, and the variables are not favorable for scheduling national games out of conference for the benefit of the fans.
0
Posted:
#68
Quote Originally Posted by Bling:
Alabama has gotten more calls their way over the last few years than any team in any sport. They and their fans are the last people who should be whining because a couple calls finally didn't go their way
Alabama has gotten more calls their way over the last few years than any team in any sport. They and their fans are the last people who should be whining because a couple calls finally didn't go their way
I disagree slightly, it's LSU that's #1 in getting the most calls their way - against Oregon the refs showed the game was no-way for ducks in the first 10 minutes; and Auburn in the Nick Fairley & Cam period got the most No-calls in 1 year.
0
Posted:
#69
1st we are stupid if we don't see it his way, then when proven incorrect, it's the rule that is stupid and needs to be changed.
Seeing the OP slowly turn into a caricature of what he used to be is one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed on any forum on any subject.
Hopefully it stops after this season. Please return to your attitude and personality of the pre 2011 season.
Thanks.
Seeing the OP slowly turn into a caricature of what he used to be is one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed on any forum on any subject.
Hopefully it stops after this season. Please return to your attitude and personality of the pre 2011 season.
Thanks.
0
Posted:
#70
Quote Originally Posted by tiasman:
1st we are stupid if we don't see it his way, then when proven incorrect, it's the rule that is stupid and needs to be changed.
Seeing the OP slowly turn into a caricature of what he used to be is one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed on any forum on any subject.
Hopefully it stops after this season. Please return to your attitude and personality of the pre 2011 season.
Thanks.
1st we are stupid if we don't see it his way, then when proven incorrect, it's the rule that is stupid and needs to be changed.
Seeing the OP slowly turn into a caricature of what he used to be is one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed on any forum on any subject.
Hopefully it stops after this season. Please return to your attitude and personality of the pre 2011 season.
Thanks.
LOL.
Best part was even after the rulebook is quoted, he still states it was the worst call ever...even though it was the right call. Delusion at it's finest. LOL.
0
Posted:
#73
Quote Originally Posted by Boom_Boom:
Guys...worst call I have ever seen.
Calling sims a jack ass was out of line.... a little alcohol. Sorry
Sims and I are fine tho, we been arguing along time on thigns... Nothing more.
The Rule is a horrible rule.
There is now way that should be ruled out of bounds. If you flip his foot around and he drags it then its in bounds??? Horrible call that needs changing. I can honestly say I never seen that call before in all my years.
Guys...worst call I have ever seen.
Calling sims a jack ass was out of line.... a little alcohol. Sorry
Sims and I are fine tho, we been arguing along time on thigns... Nothing more.
The Rule is a horrible rule.
There is now way that should be ruled out of bounds. If you flip his foot around and he drags it then its in bounds??? Horrible call that needs changing. I can honestly say I never seen that call before in all my years.
In accordance with the rule, it was not a horrible call, but the correct call. Ironically, the same thing occurred in OT of the TN/Mizzou Game. I originally thought the call would be overturned, but the announcers did a very good job of explaining the rule. (after the looked it up, as they expected it to be overturned as well).
There is a very logial reason for the rule, however. In the Bama game as well as the TN game it was a very obvious toe then heel touching, but imagine the not so obvious toe then heel contact bordering on simultaneous contact. (I am using the extreme for arguments sake) If as you say the foot is turn around the other way....the heel never hits the ground, which is why this a rare call.
I believe rules that reduce judgement/interpretation for referees are the best rules as they can be reviewed and corrected. With today's technology, this rule could be revisited, but not a totally unreasonable rule when considering the possibility of the less obvious toe then heel touch, which could easily be miscalled and scrutinized.
My two cents.
0
Hot Forum Topics
