Eric Martin

[Moiraine]

Oh really?

 

 

I take it back.

[NebraskaShellback]

Frank or his side kick mentioned that the OSU kid had back surgery some months back. I would ask what kind of surgery and why he is playing football? These two have no medical knowledge, nim-nuts sport casters. Flog'em at sea!

[Sparker]

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

 

Oh really?

 

 

Unless you are on the field watching it, the angles can be too deceiving. If it wasn't called on the field I don't see him getting any trouble at all.

 

[blackshirts5115]

The point, more or less, is that Eric could have delivered the hit to a lower part of the opponent's body which is why the announcers were harping on it.

 

Even though I think the hit on Martinez' was far more malicious, the announcers didn't give a damn about it because Taylor got up and was fine. However, watching the replay of Martinez' hit shows us that his head slammed onto the ground quite hard. I'm very surprised he wasn't injured after the play.

That's not at all why the announcers were harping on it. They said it was a cheap hit to a DEFENSELESS player. that's some bull. the guy is running down the field on a kickoff. nobody is defenseless in that situation unless Niles is 30 yards past them. Was it helmet to helmet? maybe. but no way in hell was it a "cheap shot"

[Husker Richard]

The point, more or less, is that Eric could have delivered the hit to a lower part of the opponent's body which is why the announcers were harping on it.

 

Even though I think the hit on Martinez' was far more malicious, the announcers didn't give a damn about it because Taylor got up and was fine. However, watching the replay of Martinez' hit shows us that his head slammed onto the ground quite hard. I'm very surprised he wasn't injured after the play.

That's not at all why the announcers were harping on it. They said it was a cheap hit to a DEFENSELESS player. that's some bull. the guy is running down the field on a kickoff. nobody is defenseless in that situation unless Niles is 30 yards past them. Was it helmet to helmet? maybe. but no way in hell was it a "cheap shot"

 

Exactly. Niles had just caught the ball when that dude got rocked by Eric. If you are covering a kick, you better be expecting to get hit.

[epocSoN]

Like I said before, you keep your head on a swivel and this kid doesn't get his like this. It's football 101.

[irieboy8]

i think the angel makes it look like a helmet hit..... plus the blending of the colors of both helmet and jersey sort blur the field of vision of what we are seeing.... i think based on what i saw on those clips that it was close but no cigar..........

[papersun87]

It was clean, the commentators were balls-awful and were spouting off utter nonsense all day. Didn't one of them even say something to the effect that he's against even having the free safety position?

[mitch7]

It wasn't helmet to helmet. He threw his shoulder into him. If it was helmet to helmet the OSU guy's head would have violently snapped backwards, which didn't happen if you watch the replay. Martin was just doing what he is advised to do on the kickoff team.

[The Dude]

There's literally dozens of helmet to helmet hits in every game. Yet there's only a big uproar about it when it results in injury.

 

Like that helmet shot Niles took on that weird option play that was reviewed. Nobody made a peep about that.

 

All this controversy about helmet to helmet contact is just based on knee jerk reactions to injuries.

 

If that kid Martin hit got up right away, we wouldn't have heard a word about it. Hit's like that happen all the time on kick-offs. But it's only a controversy when someone gets hurt? Gimme a break.

 

 

And yes Matin's hit was clean. This controversy is based on the announcer's idiocracy.

[Haspula]

It was a clean hit he won't get suspended

[knapplc]

It is impossible to hit someone in the upper part of their body with the upper part of your body and NOT have helmet-to-helmet contact. Helmets today are larger than ever and you simply cannot avoid ALL contact between the two helmets. But the misunderstanding here from the OP on down seems to be that people think ANY contact between two helmets is a foul. It is not.

 

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.

 

The intent of the rule is to prevent intentional use of the helmet as a weapon, and to protect defenseless players. It is not intended to stop ALL contact between helmets. This is a misrepresentation of the rule.

 

Martin's hit was led by the shoulder, into the chest of the player. The helmet contact was entirely incidental to the action of the hit.

 

The player was not - or should not have been - defenseless. If he was defenseless, that's on him, not Martin. As has been noted, the play was in front of the OK State player. At any time the ball carrier could have cut into his direction, and he could have been a tackler. He was still in "the action of the play" and should not have been off his guard.

 

There is very little difference between Martin's hit yesterday and Scott Frost's hit on an A&M player - who also wasn't paying attention to his surroundings - in this play:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwxOYwPYTuk

 

Or this hit by Joel Mackovicka on Dat Nguyen:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VykWmBkhBzc&NR=1

 

In both Frost's and Mackovicka's hits, helmets contacted. Neither hit would be deemed illegal by today's rule - as Martin's wasn't and shouldn't have been - because there was no intent to use the helmet as a weapon.

 

It's OK to discuss this play and this rule, but it seems as if the rule is widely misunderstood. Perhaps some reading is in order.

[Sparker]

It is impossible to hit someone in the upper part of their body with the upper part of your body and NOT have helmet-to-helmet contact. Helmets today are larger than ever and you simply cannot avoid ALL contact between the two helmets. But the misunderstanding here from the OP on down seems to be that people think ANY contact between two helmets is a foul. It is not.

 

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.

 

The intent of the rule is to prevent intentional use of the helmet as a weapon, and to protect defenseless players. It is not intended to stop ALL contact between helmets. This is a misrepresentation of the rule.

 

Martin's hit was led by the shoulder, into the chest of the player. The helmet contact was entirely incidental to the action of the hit.

 

The player was not - or should not have been - defenseless. If he was defenseless, that's on him, not Martin. As has been noted, the play was in front of the OK State player. At any time the ball carrier could have cut into his direction, and he could have been a tackler. He was still in "the action of the play" and should not have been off his guard.

 

There is very little difference between Martin's hit yesterday and Scott Frost's hit on an A&M player - who also wasn't paying attention to his surroundings - in this play:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwxOYwPYTuk

 

Or this hit by Joel Mackovicka on Dat Nguyen:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VykWmBkhBzc&NR=1

 

In both Frost's and Mackovicka's hits, helmets contacted. Neither hit would be deemed illegal by today's rule - as Martin's wasn't and shouldn't have been - because there was no intent to use the helmet as a weapon.

 

It's OK to discuss this play and this rule, but it seems as if the rule is widely misunderstood. Perhaps some reading is in order.

 

pwnd

[EbylHusker]

Thanks for posting that video. It's clearly an illegal hit due to the helmet to helmet contact coming from the high nature of the hit.

 

But it was not intentionally illegal, hence there should be no suspension. It should have been flagged, though.

 

I'm shocked that so many don't feel this is an illegal hit. Yes, the contact is incidental, but that does NOT matter in this case except to say the hit was not malicious. The hit was up high and the other player wasn't ducking down or doing anything that could put his helmet suddenly into the line of contact. If you make a hit like that and your helmet slams into the other guy's, it is an ILLEGAL hit.

 

wtf is wrong with you people?

[knapplc]

Thanks for posting that video. It's clearly an illegal hit due to the helmet to helmet contact coming from the high nature of the hit.

 

But it was not intentionally illegal, hence there should be no suspension. It should have been flagged, though.

 

I'm shocked that so many don't feel this is an illegal hit. Yes, the contact is incidental, but that does NOT matter in this case except to say the hit was not malicious. The hit was up high and the other player wasn't ducking down or doing anything that could put his helmet suddenly into the line of contact. If you make a hit like that and your helmet slams into the other guy's, it is an ILLEGAL hit.

wtf is wrong with you people?

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.