Fresno State player suspended for hit on Kyler Reed

I think the fact that there's so much disagreement even amongst fans of the team whose player got hit shows that it's not conclusive - thus, should not result in a suspension.

I agree with the statement that suspensions should be reserved for actions that are unquestionably malicious such as brawling or meditated hits after the whistle.

 
target.gif


Hosting this pic through my website. Please let me know if it isn't working.

 
irafreak said:
target.gif


Hosting this pic through my website. Please let me know if it isn't working.
Click to expand...
This is the perfect view. +1 to you friend.

Look you see Kyler's head start looking down after realizing the ball has no shot at being caught. The DB leaves his feet going at Kyler AFTER Kyler has shown there will be no attempt at going for the ball. One also sees the ball lands 6-7 yards beyond Kyler, as well as the Freson player lowering his head to hit Kyler in his head with the crown of his helmet. Intent or not this is a completely dangerous and susupension warranted hit. It is as bad a Emart's, if not worse.

Even the other Freson defender sees the ball is uncatchable, and quits on the play.

 
irafreak said:
Eh the penalty was enough. He clearly went helmet to helmet. He had no intention of going low but then he also wasn't looking for the ball so I think his intent WAS to prevent a completion.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more the flag was a big enough punishment making him sit out a game is overkill.

 
Good lord, I think people need to go take up a new sport because football is obviously too violent for them. Through a flag and thats the end of it. Suspension? Ejection? Are you freaking kidding me?

 
irafreak said:
target.gif


Hosting this pic through my website. Please let me know if it isn't working.
Click to expand...
I don't see this as any worse than the hit EMart puts on the guy in Epoc's avatar:
Emart.gif


I just don't get all the uproar over this. Is it because it was a hit on one of our guys?

 
knapplc said:
irafreak said:
target.gif


Hosting this pic through my website. Please let me know if it isn't working.
Click to expand...
I don't see this as any worse than the hit EMart puts on the guy in Epoc's avatar:
Emart.gif


I just don't get all the uproar over this. Is it because it was a hit on one of our guys?
Click to expand...
The difference is the "defenseless player" rule. If you have the ball, you aren't defenseless. Reed was, by the rule definition, defenseless.

 
irafreak said:
target.gif


Hosting this pic through my website. Please let me know if it isn't working.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that!

Obviously this is football, and big hits are going to happen. But you cannot lead with your helmet into a defensless player, absolute right call on a one game suspension.

 
saunders45 said:
knapplc said:
irafreak said:
target.gif


Hosting this pic through my website. Please let me know if it isn't working.
Click to expand...
I don't see this as any worse than the hit EMart puts on the guy in Epoc's avatar:
Emart.gif


I just don't get all the uproar over this. Is it because it was a hit on one of our guys?
Click to expand...
The difference is the "defenseless player" rule. If you have the ball, you aren't defenseless. Reed was, by the rule definition, defenseless.
Click to expand...
This. This is the epitome and the perfect example of the rule. By definition, this is the most illegal hit I've ever seen. A defenseless receiver who had given up on the play, a.defender who leaves his feet, leads with his head, and goes helmet to helmet.

It may not be as cheap of a shot as Rex v. ISU or Cotton v. aTm, but it was the most dangerous, by far.

If it were a Nebraska player, I would say the same thing. We have had our fair share of controversial hits, but they were all football plays, if I remember correctly. Some warranted penalties, some did not.

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