Whoa! Aaron murray gets destroyed (video)

#126
#126
I don't necessarily think he should have been suspended, but I think it shows a lack of consistency on the part of the SEC.
 
#128
#128
bamawriter said:
How so?
Click to expand...

D.J. Swearinger and Trae Elston were suspended for similar hits. I think the rule is stupid and that neither Swearinger or Elston should have been suspended, but if you are going to suspend those two, then you have to suspend Dial. His hit was just as malicious, if not more so, than the ones laid by Swearinger and Elston.

On the flip side, if you are going to have this rule, than take the subjectivity out of it. I don't know how they could properly go about this without pissing anyone off, but a good way would be to suspend anyone committing the helmet-to-helmet penalty.
 
Last edited:
#129
#129
DarthVisor said:
D.J. Swearinger and Trae Elston were suspended for similar hits. I think the rule is stupid and that neither Swearinger or Elston should have been suspended, but if you are going to suspend those two, then you have to suspend Dial. His hit was just as malicious, if not more so, than the ones laid by Swearinger and Elston.

On the flip side, if you are going to have this rule, than take the subjectivity out of it. I don't know how they could properly go about this without pissing anyone off, but a good way would be to suspend anyone committing the helmet-to-helmet penalty.
Click to expand...

Swearinger and Elston were both suspended for hitting defenseless players. Shaw cleared it up today by saying that Murray wasn't defenseless when he was hit.
 
#132
#132
DarthVisor said:
Murray absolutely was defenseless.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the two players who were suspended were on defense. Dial was technically an offensive player after the INT, and hit Murray, who had become a defender. I'm not sure by rule a defender can be considered "defenseless".
 
#134
#134
bamawriter said:
A defender, by rule, is not defenseless. He wasn't paying attention, but he was not defenseless.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that it was an unnecessary play and that Murray could have been seriously injured because of it. The only difference between the hit Murray sustained and the the hits sustained from Swearinger and Elston is in a line of text.
 
Last edited:
#136
#136
DarthVisor said:
That doesn't change the fact that it was an unnecessary play and that Murray could have been seriously injured because of it. Murray was going to have to impact on the outcome of the play.The only difference between the hit Murray sustained and the the hits sustained from Swearinger and Elston is in a line of text.
Click to expand...

Say Dial had not made helmet-to-helmet contact, but still delivered a massive hit, would that have made the block any more or less necessary? Murray could have been injured either way.
 
#137
#137
bamawriter said:
Say Dial had not made helmet-to-helmet contact, but still delivered a massive hit, would that have made the block any more or less necessary? Murray could have been injured either way.
Click to expand...

I don't have issue with the hit at all. I found it to be unnecessary, but that's football. I take issue with the fact that it was not different from hits that players were suspended for, and it shows a lack of consistency from the conference. If they truly care about eradicating helmet-to-helmet contact and trying to prevent injuries like they say they do, then they need to police it wherever it happens, not just to defenseless receivers.
 
#138
#138
If he didn't want to be hit he shouldn't have been angling toward the ball carrier. How "unnecessary" would the block have been if the Bama player had cut back and Murray had affected the play? The block occurred no more than 10-15 yards from the ball carrier.

The helmet to helmet hit is a separate issue, but I think it starts getting tenuous if players start getting suspended for helmet contact on blocks.
 
#139
#139
DarthVisor said:
I don't have issue with the hit at all. I found it to be unnecessary, but that's football. I take issue with the fact that it was not different from hits that players were suspended for, and it shows a lack of consistency from the conference. If they truly care about eradicating helmet-to-helmet contact and trying to prevent injuries like they say they do, then they need to police it wherever it happens, not just to defenseless receivers.
Click to expand...

But there is a difference. A WR in the act of making a catch can't do anything to protect himself from the hit. Murray easily could have lessened the impact, or avoided it all together, had he simply been paying attention.
 
#140
#140
I recognize the difference, but I disagree with it. I wish they would do away with helmet-to-helmet and horse collar altogether.
 
#141
#141
This is where being a Dawg fan is frustrating. CMR will just hold the boys back and wait to go crying to Slive after the game.

HANDLE IT ON THE FIELD. The hit was legal but difinitely unnecessary. The boys should take care of it on the field.

I don't approve of dirty play and hate players who players like that. But you have to fight back if your teammate is ever hit like that, especially somebody as important as your QB.

That's my baseball mentality. You come after one of my guys, you better be quick on your feet when your turn comes up.
 
#142
#142
UGA insider,

Maybe one of the boys was getting some payback when he poked Milliner in the eye. If there was any play in the game that deserved a suspension, it was that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#143
#143
UGA insider said:
HANDLE IT ON THE FIELD. The hit was legal but difinitely unnecessary. .
Click to expand...

People keep saying that . . and if you look at the replay, that's just wrong. The play was still going and Murray was even with and about 10-15 yards from the ball carrier and angling that way. There's no way to call that an "unnecessary" block.
 
#144
#144
GAVol said:
People keep saying that . . and if you look at the replay, that's just wrong. The play was still going and Murray was even with and about 10-15 yards from the ball carrier and angling that way. There's no way to call that an "unnecessary" block.
Click to expand...

I agree the block was necessary. But the way he hit him was unnecessary. He could have easily put a clean block on him, but he didn't.
 
#145
#145
GAVol said:
People keep saying that . . and if you look at the replay, that's just wrong. The play was still going and Murray was even with and about 10-15 yards from the ball carrier and angling that way. There's no way to call that an "unnecessary" block.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the hit. The helmet to helmet part was unnecessary and the head of officiating agrees.
 
#146
#146
bamawriter said:
UGA insider,

Maybe one of the boys was getting some payback when he poked Milliner in the eye. If there was any play in the game that deserved a suspension, it was that one.
Click to expand...

I read about that in the paper today. Not really the kind payback I was talking about. Slive would be ripped for suspending a UGA player and not the Bama guy who will be playing for a NC.
 
#147
#147
Not a late hit, but unsportsmanlike, imho. It would be interesting to see y'alls comments had this hit been on Bray - methinks you would look at it just a tad differently.
 
#150
#150
I know when I played you dreamed of getting to hit the QB like that!!! 20+ years ago this would have been talked about how he lit him up, and how this is a man's game ect, ect, ect.. Man times sure have changed no doubt about it!!! :twocents:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top