Eric Martin

Danimal said:
I could accept if they flagged it but EM did not spear him or aim for the head.
Click to expand...
This is my entire point. While I agree he didn't aim for the head (which would be intentional and grounds for ejection/suspension), the hit was unnecessarily high. These calls are situational. If the other guy saw him coming and hunkered down for a hit, thereby putting his helmet in the way, there would be no grounds for a call. But he didn't, he was just running along in the same relative position, and Martin hit him high enough that it initiated pretty severe helmet to helmet contact. They will call this every time when they see it.

Edit - And they will call it based on the targeting a player above the shoulders rule I quoted. It's an interpretation of the rule, in that he did not need to hit the guy so high as to initiate helmet to helmet contact.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
EbylHusker said:
aspeedlin4589 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
And the refs decided it was a legal block so...

 
EbylHusker said:
Yes, I agree with that. It's not a legal hit, and it's more clearly an illegal hit than Martin's. But Martin's still falls within the definition of today's illegal hits - at least how the refs interpret them.
Click to expand...
Umm... no. As I showed you nearly an hour ago on video, "the refs" saw Martin's hit quite clearly, and didn't flag it.

Your misinterpretation of this rule does not make your argument right. It makes your argument wrong for a reason you don't understand. Continuing to post the same thing over and over also does not make you right, it makes you wrong longer. Stop being wrong.

 
knapplc said:
EbylHusker said:
Yes, I agree with that. It's not a legal hit, and it's more clearly an illegal hit than Martin's. But Martin's still falls within the definition of today's illegal hits - at least how the refs interpret them.
Click to expand...
Umm... no. As I showed you nearly an hour ago on video, "the refs" saw Martin's hit quite clearly, and didn't flag it.

Your misinterpretation of this rule does not make your argument right. It makes your argument wrong for a reason you don't understand. Continuing to post the same thing over and over also does not make you right, it makes you wrong longer. Stop being wrong.
Click to expand...
You didn't show me anything, all you showed was a ref looking towards the incident. You also showed an angle that made the hit look like there was no helmet to helmet contact. So take your own advice and stop posting the same stuff. These beliefs that just because a flag was not thrown meant the refs saw what happened or had a good angle on it are hilarious. It doesn't mean the play was legal. We've all seen plenty of clearly illegal plays that were not seen by refs. In fact, it's a forum favorite topic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
EbylHusker said:
Yes, I agree with that. It's not a legal hit, and it's more clearly an illegal hit than Martin's. But Martin's still falls within the definition of today's illegal hits - at least how the refs interpret them.
Click to expand...
Umm... no. As I showed you nearly an hour ago on video, "the refs" saw Martin's hit quite clearly, and didn't flag it.

Your misinterpretation of this rule does not make your argument right. It makes your argument wrong for a reason you don't understand. Continuing to post the same thing over and over also does not make you right, it makes you wrong longer. Stop being wrong.
Click to expand...
Haha I like that. I'm going to use that one.

 
knapplc, what you've posted is an irrelevant rule that doesn't apply, and two videos that don't apply except showing a clean hit by Frost. And a video that shows a ref looking in the direction of the play, but from an angle that doesn't show helmet to helmet contact well. That's all you've shown, which is basically nothing relevant at all.

 
EbylHusker said:
You didn't show me anything, all you showed was a ref looking towards the incident. You also showed an angle that made the hit look like there was no helmet to helmet contact. So take your own advice and stop posting the same stuff. These beliefs that just because a flag was not thrown meant the refs saw what happened or had a good angle on it are hilarious. It doesn't mean the play was legal. We've all seen plenty of clearly illegal plays that were not seen by refs. In fact, it's a forum favorite topic.
Click to expand...
I did show you something. This is clearly a case of "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

 
knapplc said:
EbylHusker said:
You didn't show me anything, all you showed was a ref looking towards the incident. You also showed an angle that made the hit look like there was no helmet to helmet contact. So take your own advice and stop posting the same stuff. These beliefs that just because a flag was not thrown meant the refs saw what happened or had a good angle on it are hilarious. It doesn't mean the play was legal. We've all seen plenty of clearly illegal plays that were not seen by refs. In fact, it's a forum favorite topic.
Click to expand...
I did show you something. This is clearly a case of "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Click to expand...
I agree, and that post exemplifies your position clearly.

So shall we agree to disagree as someone suggested or shall I just add you to ignore (like the guy that seems to keep posting towards me, but doesn't get that he's on ignore, lol). Can I add mods to ignore?

 
EbylHusker said:
knapplc said:
EbylHusker said:
You didn't show me anything, all you showed was a ref looking towards the incident. You also showed an angle that made the hit look like there was no helmet to helmet contact. So take your own advice and stop posting the same stuff. These beliefs that just because a flag was not thrown meant the refs saw what happened or had a good angle on it are hilarious. It doesn't mean the play was legal. We've all seen plenty of clearly illegal plays that were not seen by refs. In fact, it's a forum favorite topic.
Click to expand...
I did show you something. This is clearly a case of "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Click to expand...
I agree, and that post exemplifies your position clearly.

So shall we agree to disagree as someone suggested or shall I just add you to ignore (like the guy that seems to keep posting towards me, but doesn't get that he's on ignore, lol). Can I add mods to ignore?
Click to expand...
Sure we can agree to disagree. Whatever trips your trigger.

And as far as I know, you can put Mods on ignore. Doesn't mean much when it comes to following the rules of the board, but you won't have to listen to me using logic and rules and truth and stuff all the time. I'm sure that gets annoying.

 
I saw Martin lower his shoulder. He wasn't spearing or leading with his helmet only in other words.

For those people who thought this was illegal, where exactly would you have liked Martin to have hit him coming from that angle?

This was a kickoff people. The idea of the receiving team is to block the oncoming defensive team. The guy got his clock cleaned. Martin lowered his shoulder and decleated him.

Just because the guy made a raging hit does not make it dirty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is hillarious. Anyone one crying for the ok st player is a little whiny b!^@h. Who cares they both turned out fine. Its f'ing football!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top