Eric Martin

[EbylHusker]

Last post for me in this thread...

 

knapplc, your logic is a joke.

 

The rule you posted doesn't apply as the guy was not defenseless. The rule I posted actually applies, and is what they use to base these types of decisions. You've got a great video of a block from Frost that doesn't support your argument, but rather supports mine because it shows to how to make a block without initiating helmet to helmet contact. The other of those two doesn't apply as both players were changing body position in preparation for a hit, which is stated as legal if helmet to helmet contact occurs.

 

Your wonderful logic continues with showing a video of a ref looking in the direction of the incident and not throwing a flag. You then jump to the assumption that the ref actually saw the incident (a good assumption) and that since a flag was not thrown, the play was legal. But you're ignoring the fact that illegal plays happen all the time in the game, even right in front of the refs, and they're not seen. Furthermore, the angle of that video does not show the helmet to helmet contact, so the ref very well could have seen it as perfectly legal. In fact, if I saw it from that angle, I'd agree. But we have the benefit of other angles, like the one posted towards the start of this thread.

 

In short, you've really posted nothing that supports your claim beyond "a flag wasn't thrown so it was fine". Good going, that's not proof of anything other than you being in denial.

 

If this is what your rules, truth, and logic amount to, then yeah, I really have no need of them. lol

[GMoose]

In that second video you can clearly see that Martin led with his shoulder, and the helmet contact was literally unavoidable.

[JTrain]

Seriously not worth the pissing match. Hit looked legal to me, but it was pretty close and the TV angle wasn't great. Move on.

[th3r0m]

He hits him any higher and it would be a personal foul (for reasons stated above) and if he hit him any lower it would be a personal foul (blocking below the waist). Honestly, that hit was made in just about the only way it could have been, without them playing a game of patty cake, and not drawing a personal foul. Human physiology is such that if you engage someone with you shoulder, drive forward/through with your legs and hips and keep your head up like your supposed to, your going to "move up" the opponents body and helmet to helmet is going to occur. Martin essentially used a perfect tackling form on this guy, only without wrapping up (which again would have drawn a personal foul). He wasn't aiming high, wasn't leading with his head and likely didn't realize he'd hurt the guy at first. If I were Bo, I would be pissed at the flex though; not because he injured the guy, but because as a coach I'd expect him to be looking around to find someone else to hit rather than celebrating (I'm thinking maybe Martin forgot he wasn't playing defense at that point).

 

Hell of a hit and if I'd made it, I'd include it in my highlight reel.

[The Dude]

Last post for me in this thread...

Because you got owned and ran out of straws to grasp onto? Carry on.

[ticks]

Last post for me in this thread...

 

knapplc, your logic is a joke.

 

The rule you posted doesn't apply as the guy was not defenseless. The rule I posted actually applies, and is what they use to base these types of decisions. You've got a great video of a block from Frost that doesn't support your argument, but rather supports mine because it shows to how to make a block without initiating helmet to helmet contact. The other of those two doesn't apply as both players were changing body position in preparation for a hit, which is stated as legal if helmet to helmet contact occurs.

 

Your wonderful logic continues with showing a video of a ref looking in the direction of the incident and not throwing a flag. You then jump to the assumption that the ref actually saw the incident (a good assumption) and that since a flag was not thrown, the play was legal. But you're ignoring the fact that illegal plays happen all the time in the game, even right in front of the refs, and they're not seen. Furthermore, the angle of that video does not show the helmet to helmet contact, so the ref very well could have seen it as perfectly legal. In fact, if I saw it from that angle, I'd agree. But we have the benefit of other angles, like the one posted towards the start of this thread.

 

In short, you've really posted nothing that supports your claim beyond "a flag wasn't thrown so it was fine". Good going, that's not proof of anything other than you being in denial.

 

If this is what your rules, truth, and logic amount to, then yeah, I really have no need of them. lol

 

I'm with you, but there really isn't anything to be gained from arguing with the zealots.

[knapplc]

The rule you posted doesn't apply as the guy was not defenseless. The rule I posted actually applies, and is what they use to base these types of decisions. You've got a great video of a block from Frost that doesn't support your argument, but rather supports mine because it shows to how to make a block without initiating helmet to helmet contact. The other of those two doesn't apply as both players were changing body position in preparation for a hit, which is stated as legal if helmet to helmet contact occurs.

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.

 

Your wonderful logic continues with showing a video of a ref looking in the direction of the incident and not throwing a flag. You then jump to the assumption that the ref actually saw the incident (a good assumption) and that since a flag was not thrown, the play was legal. But you're ignoring the fact that illegal plays happen all the time in the game, even right in front of the refs, and they're not seen. Furthermore, the angle of that video does not show the helmet to helmet contact, so the ref very well could have seen it as perfectly legal. In fact, if I saw it from that angle, I'd agree. But we have the benefit of other angles, like the one posted towards the start of this thread.

 

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.

 

In short, you've really posted nothing that supports your claim beyond "a flag wasn't thrown so it was fine". Good going, that's not proof of anything other than you being in denial.

 

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.

 

If this is what your rules, truth, and logic amount to, then yeah, I really have no need of them.

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.

[knapplc]

I'm with you, but there really isn't anything to be gained from arguing with the zealots.

 

Zealots who read and understand the rules.

[dutch91701]

Look at the replay. He didn't hit him with his helmet.

 

Oh really?

 

 

Your blurry video proves nothing. From that angle it looks just as likely that the helmet could have moved due to a whiplash-type effect.

[huskerscott]

As someone who had been hit like that before.... the hit was prefectly clean. Martin led with his shoulder, the Okie Lite's head snap back do to the whiplash affect, like being in car and someone rear ending you. The kid got decleated because he wsant paying attention and was going half speed. Yes you can get really messed up from hit like this, but its nobodies fault but the Okie Lite dude. Franklin and Cunningham were absolutely all over this because of the NFL coming out fining players and such for visious ILLEGAL hits. Those guys are freakin tools, i used to like and respect their opinions, now not so much.

 

The Human Hitstick strikes again!!!!

 

Now Thearnses hit, that was a total example of spearing. Which can seriously hurt himself more than the player he was intending on hitting.

[kstatehater]

LOL @ Ebylhusker being waaaaaaaaayyyyy off base, not knowing when to give up, and keep taking a beating from knapplc

 

 

 

It wasn't even close to a illegal hit....... in any form of the RULE book......

 

 

 

Because a play is FLAGGED, doesn't even mean it's illegal- officials make mistakes all the time........

 

 

But this time- they got it right.......

[melscott62]

IMO part of the reason that it looks so dirty is because martin is like 6 inches shorter than that guy

[Chomper]

Last post for me in this thread...

 

knapplc, your logic is a joke.

 

The rule you posted doesn't apply as the guy was not defenseless. The rule I posted actually applies, and is what they use to base these types of decisions. You've got a great video of a block from Frost that doesn't support your argument, but rather supports mine because it shows to how to make a block without initiating helmet to helmet contact. The other of those two doesn't apply as both players were changing body position in preparation for a hit, which is stated as legal if helmet to helmet contact occurs.

 

Your wonderful logic continues with showing a video of a ref looking in the direction of the incident and not throwing a flag. You then jump to the assumption that the ref actually saw the incident (a good assumption) and that since a flag was not thrown, the play was legal. But you're ignoring the fact that illegal plays happen all the time in the game, even right in front of the refs, and they're not seen. Furthermore, the angle of that video does not show the helmet to helmet contact, so the ref very well could have seen it as perfectly legal. In fact, if I saw it from that angle, I'd agree. But we have the benefit of other angles, like the one posted towards the start of this thread.

 

In short, you've really posted nothing that supports your claim beyond "a flag wasn't thrown so it was fine". Good going, that's not proof of anything other than you being in denial.

 

If this is what your rules, truth, and logic amount to, then yeah, I really have no need of them. lol

 

I'm with you, but there really isn't anything to be gained from arguing with the zealots.

 

HAHA wow someone learned a new word, you must have been listening to 810 Kevin Keitzman's bash on NU. LOL

[The Dude]

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.

So basically if it WAS an illegal hit, the conference will go back and do something about it. In that case, me and everyone who said it was a clean hit would be wrong. I'll eat that crow if it's served up.

 

I'm not holding my breath however.

 

 

EDIT: or maybe I'm reading it wrong and it won't be reviewed since there was no flag. They would review it in the NFL, I don't know about the BIG XII or NCAA. I'm willing to admit it if I read it wrong.

[kstatehater]

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.

So basically if it WAS an illegal hit, the conference will go back and do something about it. In that case, me and everyone who said it was a clean hit would be wrong. I'll eat that crow if it's served up.

 

I'm not holding my breath however.

 

 

EDIT: or maybe I'm reading it wrong and it won't be reviewed since there was no flag. They would review it in the NFL, I don't know about the BIG XII or NCAA. I'm willing to admit it if I read it wrong.

 

 

You are reading wrong...

 

1. He did not target a defenseless player

2. He did not use the crown of his helmet

3. He was not flagged- because it was a clean hit...........