Eric Martin

[EbylHusker]

I do love a good knapplc-owning-people thread. I have seen too few of these in recent months. Or maybe I just don't lerk as much as I used to.

Except he's not owning anyone since he's convinced it has to be explicitly stated in the manual to be covered in the game. It doesn't, the refs interpret those rules all the time, which is why they try to add the rule interpretations. But they don't cover everything or every situation. I've posted an example from the rules that covers the Martin hit as illegal.

 

[ADS]

The rule is there to protect players, and the refs will interpret the rules. All of these interpretations are not covered in the manual, so you can dig around to your heart's content and not find something to fit every situation.

One situation they do call are hits that have incidental (but serious) helmet to helmet contact that did not need to have it. That's the difference between your Frost video and the Martin hit. Neither needed to have helmet to helmet contact, as the targeted player in both cases was just running along. No change in body posture, no hunkering down, etc.

The Frost hit was made in a way that no helmet to helmet contact happened. Martin's was not - in fact his helmet hit the other guy's quite hard. This is something the will call if they see. That they didn't flag it doesn't prove they saw it, had a good angle on it, etc.

Dont you want Taylor protected from getting his head punched? That call was right.

 

[EbylHusker]

Dont you want Taylor protected from getting his head punched? That call was right.

The point of your post is...what? That part is explicitly covered in the rules in that you can't punch/forearms/yada yada to the head. The point we're discussing is not explicitly covered, it's an interpretation of more general rules, which is why there is debate.

 

[The Dude]

I do love a good knapplc-owning-people thread. I have seen too few of these in recent months. Or maybe I just don't lerk as much as I used to.

Except he's not owning anyone since he's convinced it has to be explicitly stated in the manual to be covered in the game. It doesn't, the refs interpret those rules all the time, which is why they try to add the rule interpretations. But they don't cover everything or every situation. I've posted an example from the rules that covers the Martin hit as illegal.

Again, you're grasping at straws and simply ignoring the rules. If it was illegal it would have been called. It wasn't, move one.

 

[Enhance]

I do love a good knapplc-owning-people thread. I have seen too few of these in recent months. Or maybe I just don't lerk as much as I used to.

Except he's not owning anyone since he's convinced it has to be explicitly stated in the manual to be covered in the game. It doesn't, the refs interpret those rules all the time, which is why they try to add the rule interpretations. But they don't cover everything or every situation. I've posted an example from the rules that covers the Martin hit as illegal.

I don't mean to squeeze my way into an argument I have no say in, but hasn't knapplc also shown you AMPLE evidence that Martin's hit could be viewed as legal as well, in the form of exact rule quotations and various videos where no penalties were called?

Perhaps you both should just agree to disagree. Rules are interpreted by refs, yes, which is why there is always the faulty human element involved in the game. It wasn't called, some people think that's the right call and some people don't. I say we straighten our caps and move on.

 

[ADS]

Dont you want Taylor protected from getting his head punched? That call was right.

The point of your post is...what? That part is explicitly covered in the rules in that you can't punch/forearms/yada yada to the head. The point we're discussing is not explicitly covered, it's an interpretation of more general rules, which is why there is debate.

The point is why do you care about what happened to an OSU player, on a completely legal football play when OUR quarterback got uppercutted and his head slammed into the turf?

 

[EbylHusker]

knapplc's rule is regarding ejections of flagrant targeting of a defenseless player. The guy wasn't defenseless (it is clearly outlined in the rules regarding what is and isn't defenseless). So that part, and that rule, is irrelevant.

 

[HuskerJosh]

Dont you want Taylor protected from getting his head punched? That call was right.

The point of your post is...what? That part is explicitly covered in the rules in that you can't punch/forearms/yada yada to the head. The point we're discussing is not explicitly covered, it's an interpretation of more general rules, which is why there is debate.

The only debate is in your head. You're reaching.

 

[EbylHusker]

Dont you want Taylor protected from getting his head punched? That call was right.

The point of your post is...what? That part is explicitly covered in the rules in that you can't punch/forearms/yada yada to the head. The point we're discussing is not explicitly covered, it's an interpretation of more general rules, which is why there is debate.

The point is why do you care about what happened to an OSU player, on a completely legal football play when OUR quarterback got uppercutted and his head slammed into the turf?

It wasn't a legal play, it was an illegal hit. And hit on Taylor was flagged, wasn't it?

 

[EbylHusker]

I do love a good knapplc-owning-people thread. I have seen too few of these in recent months. Or maybe I just don't lerk as much as I used to.

Except he's not owning anyone since he's convinced it has to be explicitly stated in the manual to be covered in the game. It doesn't, the refs interpret those rules all the time, which is why they try to add the rule interpretations. But they don't cover everything or every situation. I've posted an example from the rules that covers the Martin hit as illegal.

I don't mean to squeeze my way into an argument I have no say in, but hasn't knapplc also shown you AMPLE evidence that Martin's hit could be viewed as legal as well, in the form of exact rule quotations and various videos where no penalties were called?

Perhaps you both should just agree to disagree. Rules are interpreted by refs, yes, which is why there is always the faulty human element involved in the game. It wasn't called, some people think that's the right call and some people don't. I say we straighten our caps and move on.

Not really. The rule knapplc quoted doesn't apply here, it's about something else.

In addition, I've already addressed his videos. The Frost hit had no helmet to helmet contact. The other hit was two players hunkering down for contact and their helmets collided. That last part is explicitly covered in the rules as legal. Neither of those videos is like Martin's hit.

 

[ADS]

Dont you want Taylor protected from getting his head punched? That call was right.

The point of your post is...what? That part is explicitly covered in the rules in that you can't punch/forearms/yada yada to the head. The point we're discussing is not explicitly covered, it's an interpretation of more general rules, which is why there is debate.

The point is why do you care about what happened to an OSU player, on a completely legal football play when OUR quarterback got uppercutted and his head slammed into the turf?

It wasn't a legal play, it was an illegal hit. And hit on Taylor was flagged, wasn't it?

He was on kick return cover, he has to be ready for big hits. Its part of the game, when your on KICK RETURN. And yes it was flagged, but I dont see the point in attacking Martin for a good hit.

 

[Danimal]

I could accept if they flagged it but EM did not spear him or aim for the head. Commentators made too much of the hit, Okie State guy made a much more blatant blow to the head later in the game. EM should quit standing around flexing during a play. That looks bad.

 

[The Dude]

Dont you want Taylor protected from getting his head punched? That call was right.

The point of your post is...what? That part is explicitly covered in the rules in that you can't punch/forearms/yada yada to the head. The point we're discussing is not explicitly covered, it's an interpretation of more general rules, which is why there is debate.

The point is why do you care about what happened to an OSU player, on a completely legal football play when OUR quarterback got uppercutted and his head slammed into the turf?

It wasn't a legal play, it was an illegal hit. And hit on Taylor was flagged, wasn't it?

The difference is the hit on Taylor was illegal, and the hit on the OSU kid wasn't according to... ya know... THE RULES. Which you are still ignoring.

 

[EbylHusker]

He was on kick return cover, he has to be ready for big hits. Its part of the game, when your on KICK RETURN. And yes it was flagged, but I dont see the point in attacking Martin for a good hit.

Again, please try to keep up. This has no affect on my argument, because I'm not arguing he was defenseless. He was fair game to be blocked. The block, though, was illegal. Or perhaps I should say the block falls into a rules interpretation that the refs will call if they see it.

 

[Husker Richard]

The hit in epocSoN's avatar was more illegal than the one yesterday.