Eric Martin

knapplc said:
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.
Click to expand...


LOL

 
EbylHusker said:
Yeah, incidental contact happens. But it's generally when both players are hunkering down for an impact. Not when one is running along (stupidly unaware, yes, but that's not the point here) and the other levels him. If you do that, as in hit a player that's just running along, you'd best be sure your helmet is not slamming into the other guy's at the same time your shoulder is hitting his chest. They will call that as targeting a player above the shoulders. It doesn't have to be intentional - it's a circumstance where a high hit is made that didn't need to be so high as to initiate contact with the helmet, and they will flag it if they see it.
Click to expand...
You know, I tried not to make a comment in this thread and just read the argumentative posts. However, this post sticks out to me.

It sticks out as a post of somebody that must have never played football at any level. If you think you have time to think about all that stuff on a kickoff return you don't know anything about playing the game. Do you think you just aim for one guy during a kick off and follow him anywhere he goes to block him? Most of the time, in the position Martin was in, you follow the kick back, turn around and there is somebody right there.

oSu guy needed to have his head on a swivel to protect himself. You can't just stare at the return man and expect not to get your lights shut off. This is Division 1 College Football, not Pop Warner.

 
I think many of us in here may be using the rules from the recent NFL rule change instead of the NCAA FBS rules. They are different and the NFL is actually more strict for these hits right now.

Just my $.02.

 
ticks said:
knapplc said:
ticks said:
I'm with you, but there really isn't anything to be gained from arguing with the zealots.
Click to expand...
Zealots who read and understand the rules. ;)
Click to expand...
You posted rules stating precisely why you are wrong, so you can stop banging that drum.
Click to expand...
I posted THE ONLY rule pertaining to this situation. Had you read the rules, you would know that. Clearly you have not read the rules.

But let me offer you an out - go find the "right" rule and show me I'm wrong. Should be easy enough.

 
My first question for some geniuses here is

1

1) why is a husker fan complaining about the hit? To me that's government level hypocrisy.

2) How was the player defenseless? he was looking in the direct of Nile, hence the direction of Martin.

3) The only reason this was an issue is because he was supposedly hurt. Why was he hurt? The commentators proceeded to tell a sob story how the poor kid had just had back surgery not too long ago. WHY HELL WAS HE IN ON THE MOST VIOLENT PART OF THE GAME COMING OF BACK SURGERY. Too bad.

After watching to vids, i'm 50-50, it coulda been either way, he was leading with his shoulder first, but there was-in my view-violent contact between the helmets. Thenarse's hits-well that crap has to stop before we're bringing the coroner onto the field for someone. I've seen this from him more than 5 times this year. You get thrown out of high school games in this state and our little league football league where i live kicks you out of the league for that stuff. very dissappointing.

 
TheCheshireCat said:
knapplc said:
TheCheshireCat said:
There's no point in arguing with knapplc, he'll just delete your posts/thread anyway if he doesn't like it/can't think of a retort.
Click to expand...
Yes, I clearly don't know how to support the logic of my position, so I've just deleted this whole thread.
Click to expand...
Obviously not this one, but you have on other ones.
Click to expand...
If you're going to slander me, at least slander me for things I'm guilty of. I have never locked or deleted a thread to "win" a discussion. Everyone who's read the gazillion discussions I've been in over the past three years here at HuskerBoard know this is crap. I like to debate 1,000,000,000 times more than I like to lock a thread. If threads get locked it's because there's been a violation or (as in the case of the idiot who posted the second Taylor Martinez/Walter Camp thread) a duplicate. It has nothing to do with thinking of retorts.

 
didn't see the game yesterday, but I'm watching the repaly on espn3 right now. It was a clean hit Martins job was to block that kid and that is what he did. Hard hit did not lead with his helmet the player was absolutly not defenseless, and it was not too far away from the play.

I know see what everyone was saying about the anouncers, I had to rewind the replay to make sure I heard them correctly but the actually argued that the new safer helmets, make the players feel invinceable and therefor are more willing to put helmet to helmet hits on other players. :facepalm:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
...

The rule I posted is THE RULE for flagrant fouls. The NCAA doesn't have separate rules for flagrant fouls for players who are and aren't paying attention, they have ONE RULE. Coincidentally, that's the rule I posted. Had you used google, you would have known that. Here is the rule again, since you can't be bothered to do your own basic research:

Flagrant Personal Fouls (Rule 9-6). For 2009-10 the rules committee has added a new section that calls for conferences in the days following a game to review certain particularly dangerous plays. This new rule says that if a player is ejected for any flagrant personal foul the conference must review the game video for possible further action.
In addition
, if the officials call fouls for
targeting defenseless players or
using the crown of the helmet
and the player is not ejected, the rules mandate a conference review. Furthermore, if the review by the conference reveals actions that should have resulted in a personal foul but were not called, the conference may impose sanctions.
I put the words "In addition" in bold because, apparently in your straw-grasping, you somehow think that because the rule mentions defenseless players, that's all it covers. This is not the sole intent of this rule - it clearly has two parts:

1) targeting defenseless players

OR

2) using the crown of the helmet

Underlined, above. This is not an ambiguous rule. While you may wish to pretend that the rule does not support what I've been telling you, it most certainly does. Continuing to say it doesn't isn't productive, it's pointless. Stop being pointless.

...
Click to expand...
And you can argue whatever you wish to about intent, but he sort of lost the benefit of the doubt with his behavior on the sidelines.

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