knapplc

Zealots who read and understand the rules. You posted rules stating precisely why you are wrong, so you can stop banging that drum. 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.

If you want good food after the game, go to 7th & P in the Haymarket (southwest of the stadium a few blocks) and go to Lazlo's. Best beer in town and better pub food than any other joint listed in this thread so far.

Wow that's way different than CBS. Missouri - 8 Nebraska -34 CBS Considering the fact that CBS bases their SOS on guys like Dennis Dodd and Sagarin's rankings are an actual part of the BCS formula, I'll take Sagarin's word for it over CBS'.

Zealots who read and understand the rules.

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. Here's where the straw-grasping begins to spin out of control. I show you a video of a referee WATCHING THE PLAY and you put forth, with zero evidence, that the referee didn't actually see it. But here's the glaring error in this tangent - this wasn't the only referee on the field. While we have video evidence of one referee actually looking right at the play, using your logic we are free to conjecture that every single referee on the field was looking at Martin's hit. Clearly that is unreasonable, so we'll just go with the one referee we have - the guy in the video looking at the play. What I've offered is: The NCAA's rule on this kind of hit. Evidence that the hit was witnessed by at least one official. Evidence from two different angles showing that Martin led with his shoulder, not his helmet. A full and logical explanation of the rule as it pertains to this situation. Considering the fact that your argument ignores the facts and boils down to, "I don't see it that way," ignoring the evidence provided, the opinions of at least a dozen members in this thread, and the actual NCAA rule, and clinging to the straw that, "Not all violations are flagged," I'm pretty comfortable with what I've said in this thread.

Be sure to tip your waiter. And try the veal.

SOS is also relevant to these stats. SOS, according to Sagarin: Missouri - 30 Nebraska - 41

I did show you something. This is clearly a case of "There are none so blind as those who will not see." 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? 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 did show you something. This is clearly a case of "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Will we run the Peso against them or will we go with the Dime package primarily? I'm still learning about football as I spent my whole life playing hockey. Thanks. We will run Peso. If you ask me, Missouri was the primary reason Bo went to the Peso scheme, since we play them every year.

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.

Discussing football is what this forum is for.

So, to recap: The Ref saw the play (looking right at it, on the video) The rule discusses intentional use of the helmet on a defenseless player. The player was not defenseless and the helmet was not used. The rule does not allow for incidental contact. The helmet-to-helmet contact was incidental. Despite the ref looking right at the play, there was no flag, no foul, and no ejection. Ron Franklin is a quivering vagina and has whined about Nebraska players for going on 3 years now Did I miss anything?

Watch the ref focusing right on Martin.

Missouri is actually "multiple." They are capable of moving the ball on the ground, and more than capable through the air.

They saw it, and didn't flag it. Next.

So if we don't see it your way, suddenly we're not the best fans in college football? Please.

I can't believe you're wasting your time on this either. It's pretty simple: 1) It was not intentional. Not a foul. 2) Martin's hit was not directed towards the opponent's head. Again, the rule is not in place to eliminate EVERY SINGLE TIME a helmet contacts a helmet. Basic human physiology shows that if you tackle with your shoulders - as you are supposed to - your helmet will contact the other player. If you hit him around his shoulders, you'll contact his helmet with yours. Again, not a foul. It is not illegal, simply because the contact was incidental. The force of the hit is irrelevant. The injury sustained by the other player is irrelevant. The ONLY THING that is relevant is if it was intentionally directed at the other players HEAD. It was not - it was directed at the other player's shoulders/chest, and the helmet contact was incidental.

It is comical, but not for the reasons you seem to think it's comical.

No, they do not call "these hits" all the time. Again, repeating yourself like a broken record doesn't make your point true, it just means you're repeating yourself. When they throw flags on hits it's flagrant (hence the use of the word in the rule, BTW). I've seen a good dozen of these flags thrown, and each time it's for a hit LEADING with the helmet, on purpose. Rickey Thenarse's hit that banged up LaVonte David was more flag-worthy than Martin's hit. The only reason we're talking about this is that the announcers got their panties in a twist yesterday. Martin has about half a dozen hits like this every year. This kid got his world rocked, the announcers threw a hissy fit, and suddenly we're throwing Martin under the bus. You can tell this is true because Martin had a similar crushing hit on the opening kickoff yesterday that the announcers did NOT blow a gasket on, and we're not talking about it today. Go back and look at the film, and ask yourself why we're talking about this hit and not that one.

OK, so we'll drop the "defenseless" part of the question, since we all agree that the player wasn't - or shouldn't have been - defenseless. But Martin hit the kid shoulder-to-shoulder. Martin's pad level is actually lower than the OK State guy's pads. Legit hit.

I literally LOLed at this. Your position would be like griping that a player was flagged for throwing a forward pass when he was beyond the line of scrimmage, and when someone points out to you that this is the rule, you say, "Yeah, but people throw forward passes all the time, and they aren't flagged." You cannot make up rules for the game to suit your argument. The rules are the rules, and they are being applied properly in this situation. The fact that Martin not only was not thrown out of the game for a flagrant foul, but WAS NOT EVEN FLAGGED, should speak volumes in this instance. You don't appear to watch college football much, as this type of hit is indeed flagged all the time. There is obviously something they're calling. I don't have time to scour the rulebook to find what they're calling - feel free to do it. They're calling something out there. That you're willing to ignore that is ridiculous. And yeah, the flag wasn't thrown. Does that mean the refs catch all flaggable plays? Oh wait...no, probably not, with all the whining I see on this forum about missed flags...gg... I'm sorry you don't want to read the rules. If you choose to argue from a position of ignorance, that's your choice. I'm going to read the rules, know the rules, understand the rules, and apply them accordingly. Whether I've watched college football since the days of Red Grange or yesterday was my first game ever is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I'm explaining the proper application of the rule, I've cited the rule, I've shown how this play doesn't apply under that rule, and I've given examples of other, similar plays where the rule would/would not apply. None of this changes the fact that it was a hard, clean hit.

I literally LOLed at this. Your position would be like griping that a player was flagged for throwing a forward pass when he was beyond the line of scrimmage, and when someone points out to you that this is the rule, you say, "Yeah, but people throw forward passes all the time, and they aren't flagged." You cannot make up rules for the game to suit your argument. The rules are the rules, and they are being applied properly in this situation. The fact that Martin not only was not thrown out of the game for a flagrant foul, but WAS NOT EVEN FLAGGED, should speak volumes in this instance.

Offhand I would say we're able to read the NCAA rule on helmet-to-helmet hits and we grasp the concept of the rule. And to the underlined above - I've already explained why that is NOT an illegal hit. Repeating that it is won't change the fact that it isn't.

We can also spin straw into gold. If you look on the first page of this thread, there are a few tweets from Game Day people saying they're going to be at the UO/USC game.