Recruiting Forum Football Talk VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
#14,355
#14,355
Weezer said:
Was it unnecessary? He was separating the receiver from the ball. Isn't that what DBs are supposed to do? JMO, but it was just an unfortunate turn of events that Harrison got hurt on the hit. From the replays I've watched, the hit looks legal, even though there was incidental helmet contact




















We all wanted Georgia to lose. I still hope they lose to TCU. In no way do I want to see them repeat. But I just don't see the hit as dirty. And if it had been our DB hitting a Clemson player like that, I think everyone would be saying it was a clean hit.
Click to expand...

Kinda like fans are convinced Ced was hurt because of dirty play by Akron.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeredblooded, beneVOLence, SweetasSoda and 1 other person
#14,360
#14,360
Glitch said:
View attachment 528553
Click to expand...

SpectacularBadConey-size_restricted.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Paper_Towel, DarthVol1 and 5 others
#14,363
#14,363
BigSteve09 said:
So people don't have to Google



She resigned a few weeks ago


Edit: Now she took her resignation tweet down but she put out a message on 12/8 that she was leaving her position to move in to "her next chapter in life."
Click to expand...

Even worst case scenario, it's not that bad. A bunch of consenting adults doing unprofessional things. Not program changing type stuff, and rarely is the truth as bad as the rumors.

Biggest loss is losing their wr coach and not getting boutte back for next year. Probably hurts them in recruiting, a lot of parents don't want to send their kids into that kind of environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, OrangenSC, OptimusPrimerib and 12 others
#14,364
#14,364
UGA is built like those old Alabama teams to an extent in which you need an elite QB to beat them, mobile but also an accurate passer. Max Duggan is why they would have a shot since he’s both of those things.

Also depends on if the Zebras let UGA’s secondary get away with being physical/holding like they did when they played us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Paper_Towel, OptimusPrimerib and 8 others
#14,367
#14,367
GUNTERSVOL said:
This rule crosses some lines not used in MOST of the rest of the rulebook. If you block in the back, it is a foul because you do, not whether it was your intent for example, takes aim is the exact wording in the rule. The inclusion and featuring of the indicators in the rule is clearly looking to identify intent to make dangerous contact. Launching, crouching then upward thrust for example. Crown is it's own separate world. Intentionally adjusting and using the top of the helmet as a weapon rather than a protective device is what is in play.

The short oversimplified version of the rule 9-1-4 you can't hit a defenseless player with darn near anything in the head and neck area, OR 2) you cannot hit another player with the crown of your helmet darn near anywhere on his body. The confusion is sometimes a guy is guilty of both. If you read the 4 non-inclusive listed indicators in the rule, Crown, the last one is the only one that does not limit it to contact in the head and neck area, but specifically calls for lowering the head to employ the crown and "INITIATING" contact for it to be a foul.

The oft overlooked separate 9-1-3 an inch up the page says you cannot use the crown of the helmet on an opponent defenseless or not, but there must be an indicator from Note 1. shared with 9-1-4 but not one from the defenseless player Note 2 list. The construction is a bit murky. It is made worse by the inclusion of the word initiating in the shared indicator for crown only. So is secondary or incidental hard contact with the helmet ok by rule? The addition of the 6 inch radius from the top to define crown is not a help either. Having crown in both rules, especailly 9-1-4 seems unnecessary.

Like in life, trying to legislate morals can get ugly.

Rule cleanup on isle 9 please.........
Click to expand...
Honestly, your explanation makes it pretty clear. If the defender takes aim and attacks the head or neck of a defenseless player, it's targeting. Or if he uses the crown to initiate contact on anyone. They could really leave it at that. Granted there's still plenty of subjectivity, but it's pretty clear that accidentally hitting the head or neck (like when the player suddenly ducks or falls down) shouldn't be targeting.

Officials were not following the rules all those times they kicked someone out for targeting when the defender was aiming for the stomach and the runner ducked into a head shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#14,373
#14,373
jave36 said:
Even worst case scenario, it's not that bad. A bunch of consenting adults doing unprofessional things. Not program changing type stuff, and rarely is the truth as bad as the rumors.

Biggest loss is losing their wr coach and not getting boutte back for next year. Probably hurts them in recruiting, a lot of parents don't want to send their kids into that kind of environment.
Click to expand...
Then again we're talking deep south. An area of many contradictions and hypocrisies. Lots of 'preachin' from behind the press conference, meanwhilst dailing 1800-hooker on company issued mobile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paper_Towel, HeadVol77, jave36 and 1 other person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top