What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 D1 BCS thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bigmrg74 said:
They called that a blow to the head right?? All he really needed to do was dip his hips a little and not have the helmet to helmet there.
Click to expand...

No, just regular "unnecessary roughness". There was no helmet contact at all. I guess it's to discourage big hits or manliness or something. I know the call benefitted the Badgers, but that was a load of crap.

Meanwhile: Montee Ball-er has returned.
 
Re: 2012 D1 BCS thread

All he had to do was get in the way. Instead, he went for an unnecessary kill shot. Just like in hockey, that play needs to disappear.

You've got a huge lawsuit against the NFL. Guys killing themselves due to brain damage. Parents not allowing their kids to play football.

Yet we need to protect that play? We've got TV announcers going on and on about it?

They made the right call according to the new emphasis.

I'm just glad the the Badger player isn't dead.
 
Re: 2012 D1 BCS thread

Well, Wisconsin is headed to its third straight rose bowl, undeservedly so or not. What pains me is MSU has beaten them every year they've gone during this stretch.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 D1 BCS thread

RE: Alabama vs. Georgia
Gurtholfin said:
You HAVE to down the ball there. With 15 seconds left, you don't have time for 4 downs anyway.

I'm always amazed at how people who are PAID to make these decisions screw them up when it matters most.


I'd be sick right now if I was a Georgia fan...
Click to expand...
Bullseye!

But on to the BT game...

Gurtholfin said:
All he had to do was get in the way. Instead, he went for an unnecessary kill shot.
Click to expand...
Not a bullseye. Player safety is a legitimate concern. But if that's an illegal hit, you've just banned a significant percentage of what corners and safeties do to defend the pass. Running backs regularly take this kind of hit as well. Does the hit become necessary roughness just because the hitter is playing on the defensive side of the ball?

If this was a shot to the head or the neck, I'd be with you. It wasn't. It was shoulder to shoulder contact.

Just like in hockey, that play needs to disappear.
Click to expand...
In both sports, a big hit can swing momentum, as has always been considered a legitimate intimidation tactic as long as it was clean. The definition of "clean" can and does change. We now understand that targeting the head just isn't medically acceptable. Again, if this had been a head shot, I'd be on your side.

You've got a huge lawsuit against the NFL. Guys killing themselves due to brain damage. Parents not allowing their kids to play football.
Click to expand...
Please. While a certain amount of rhetorical excess goes with this territory, you're over the top here. Parents won't let their kids play? A generation ago, soccer was the bogeyman. No mother was going to let her son play football when evil, foreign soccer provided another option. It would seem that football survived that crisis, and it will survive the concussion issue as well.

Yet we need to protect that play? We've got TV announcers going on and on about it?

They made the right call according to the new emphasis.
Click to expand...
Banning head shots is a viable rule. But legislating against blindside hits? I haven't read the actual text of the "new emphasis," but if the standard boils down to "hit him, but don't get him too good," then consistent enforcement is going to be a huge problem. Where do you draw the line between the legitimate element of surprise and illegal blindsiding?

I'm just glad the the Badger player isn't dead.
Click to expand...
Obviously no one wanted him injured, much less killed. I guess if you want to close your post by dragging out the bloody shirt, so be it. But it might be more helpful for you tell us what you think the rule should be. Personally I'm open to suggestion. But unless you can persuade me otherwise, I'm with EODS & Hammer on this call.
 
Re: 2012 D1 BCS thread

pgb-ohio said:
But unless you can persuade me otherwise, I'm with EODS & Hammer on this call.
Click to expand...


Well said. Make your stand.

I'm with the refs and the powers that be who called that unnecessary.


Ultimately, it's a judgement call. You won't be able to write a rule on something like this that is black & white. Gonna come down to the eye test.

Players only need to do what's "necessary." That crossed the line by quite a bit.

No one needs to die or be paralyzed or have a brain injury for my entertainment - unless of course they are wearing maroon & gold.

You're on the wrong side of this as league officials at all levels in all contact sports are looking to remove these sorts of things. You and others can grip about the Nancification of sports, but they're still going to try and get this out.

FWIW (not much, I'm sure), the Borland WWF body slam should have been a penalty also.
 
Re: 2012 D1 BCS thread

Gurtholfin said:
Well said. Make your stand.

I'm with the refs and the powers that be who called that unnecessary.

Ultimately, it's a judgement call. You won't be able to write a rule on something like this that is black & white. Gonna come down to the eye test.
Click to expand...
Of course judgment will inevitably be a component, but it's just not enough. In our game, rules against boarding and charging are a big help in distinguishing clean from dirty hits. Those rules give all concerned a reasonable amount of notice as to what's permitted and what isn't.

Players only need to do what's "necessary." That crossed the line by quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Again, our sport has a partial answer. We have stiffer penalties for intent to injure. Now that can be tough to enforce too. But it's a better standard than "no wow factor hits." FWIW, I didn't think there was intent to injure on the block. Intimidate and send a message, yes. Now if you thought there was intent to injure, that basically explains the disagreement. But if that's your position, you need to say that.

No one needs to die or be paralyzed or have a brain injury for my entertainment - unless of course they are wearing maroon & gold.
Click to expand...
Obviously this quip is meant to add some levity to the conversation, but it also points out the consistency problem anew. Are wow factor hits illegal except in the biggest games? Maybe the block was OK then. After all, this was a championship game.

You're on the wrong side of this as league officials at all levels in all contact sports are looking to remove these sorts of things. You and others can grip about the Nancification of sports, but they're still going to try and get this out.
Click to expand...
Elite level coaches and athletes are going to push the limits. If administrators and officials want to tighten those limits a bit that's fine. But I still say that you and the rulemakers need to do a lot better than "I know it when I see it." Hard hits have always been a core part of the sport of football. Defending that isn't just macho BS. And proposing a significant modification to this requires carefully calibrated rules, not hopelessly vague standards.

FWIW (not much, I'm sure), the Borland WWF body slam should have been a penalty also.
Click to expand...
That's worth a lot, actually. It shows that you're being consistent, not a homer. I remember the Borland play vividly, and my immediate reaction was that if the block was a penalty, then the body slam was definitely a penalty.
 
Re: 2012 D1 BCS thread

pgb-ohio said:
Of course judgment will inevitably be a component, but it's just not enough. In our game, rules against boarding and charging are a big help in distinguishing clean from dirty hits. Those rules give all concerned a reasonable amount of notice as to what's permitted and what isn't.

That's worth a lot, actually. It shows that you're being consistent, not a homer. I remember the Borland play vividly, and my immediate reaction was that if the block was a penalty, then the body slam was definitely a penalty.
Click to expand...


I agree with your first point. It will be tough to define, which is why it won't be defined per se. It's along the lines of "I don't know how to define unnecessary roughness, but I know it when I see it." BTW, I know they actually called head contact. No matter the call, the ref knew that something was wrong with the play.

Again, that nuclear blow-up was far more than needed on that play and very dangerous to boot. The receiver could see that the db didn't see him and he went for the kill shot. I don't think there was intent to injure, although there was intent to hurt and it's reasonable to know that an injury could result.

A slight shoulder bump would have had the same result in terms of effectiveness - including (most importantly) allowing the TD to stand up. It wouldn't have made the highlight reel though or "sent a message." What's the "message" at that point anyway?

Finally, I'm not a homer on these types of things. Been in many of the hockey threads when the open-ice, blind-side decapitations take place and I'm always on the side of eliminating those hits.

The argument can be made that the players know the risks, they sign up for it. I call BS on that. Even if they know it's possible on some level, they don't believe it will happen to them. Also, they don't need to put that much of their health on the line for mine or anyone else's entertainment.

These sports are dangerous enough (and entertaining enough) that we don't need the gratuitous stuff that crosses the line. If a Badger does that, I will have no problem with a penalty on it. Believe me or don't.

In my son's hockey program, we've got a 7th grader who still has severe concussion symptoms from a hit he took in September that was very similar to what happened in that football game. The opposing player could clearly see that our player didn't see him coming and went for the kill shot when much less would have been sufficient (an legal). He was ejected from the game.

Our player is out for the year (and maybe forever) and is still sensitive to light and noise and is evidently dealing with some depression issues. Sure, this is an extreme example. Sure, his parents knew that some risk is inherent to playing hockey. I'm sure that they were hoping though that their kid wouldn't be so seriously injured on an avoidable cheap shot.

I don't want to go round and round on this. I've said my part and I've given it a lot of thought, so I'm not likely to change my mind. You've probably thought it out too.

The only thing I can say further though is that leagues are looking to get rid of these plays, so even if it's the football and hockey that we all grew up with, it's going to change and I have no problem with the change as I prefer the strategy and playmaking of sports more than the abject violence anyway.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 D1 BCS thread

Saw that play at the bar yesterday. Terrible call. That was a clean block, and this is football, not ****ing candyass soccer.
 
Re: 2012 D1 BCS thread

Gurtholfin said:
I agree with your first point. It will be tough to define, which is why it won't be defined per se. It's along the lines of "I don't know how to define unnecessary roughness, but I know it when I see it." BTW, I know they actually called head contact. No matter the call, the ref knew that something was wrong with the play.

Again, that nuclear blow-up was far more than needed on that play and very dangerous to boot. The receiver could see that the db didn't see him and he went for the kill shot. I don't think there was intent to injure, although there was intent to hurt and it's reasonable to know that an injury could result.

A slight shoulder bump would have had the same result in terms of effectiveness - including (most importantly) allowing the TD to stand up. It wouldn't have made the highlight reel though or "sent a message." What's the "message" at that point anyway?
Click to expand...
It was still fairly early on. Nebraska was struggling to stay in the game, and specifically struggling to keep up with Wisconsin's physicality. The Badgers, particularly in the trenches, had been very dominant to that point. The message would be that Nebraska was still in the game, still fighting back with some physicality of their own.

Finally, I'm not a homer on these types of things. Been in many of the hockey threads when the open-ice, blind-side decapitations take place and I'm always on the side of eliminating those hits
The argument can be made that the players know the risks, they sign up for it. I call BS on that. Even if they know it's possible on some level, they don't believe it will happen to them. Also, they don't need to put that much of their health on the line for mine or anyone else's entertainment.

These sports are dangerous enough (and entertaining enough) that we don't need the gratuitous stuff that crosses the line. If a Badger does that, I will have no problem with a penalty on it. Believe me or don't.
Click to expand...
I think you understood my previous post, but just to be sure: My point was that you weren't being a homer, and that I was commending you for that.


In my son's hockey program, we've got a 7th grader who still has severe concussion symptoms from a hit he took in September that was very similar to what happened in that football game. The opposing player could clearly see that our player didn't see him coming and went for the kill shot when much less would have been sufficient (an legal). He was ejected from the game.

Our player is out for the year (and maybe forever) and is still sensitive to light and noise and is evidently dealing with some depression issues. Sure, this is an extreme example. Sure, his parents knew that some risk is inherent to playing hockey. I'm sure that they were hoping though that their kid wouldn't be so seriously injured on an avoidable cheap shot.
Click to expand...
Two important comments here:

1. In comparison to Division I sports, the threshhold for unnecessary roughness should be very different at the 7th Grade level. Players at that age are much less experienced, much more vulnerable. You can tell the kids to skate with their heads up until you're blue in the face, but many can't or won't. Tougher rules and stricter enforcement are appropriate at that level for these and other reasons.

2. The opposing player was called for the violation and ejected. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that it was a good call. If you having 7th Graders willingly taking DQs, that's a problem. It sounds like the appropriate rules were in place, and that the real issue is that you had a kid who was willing to operate far outside those rules. In contrast, Nebraska's #80 appeared to be trying to follow the rules (at his level) by avoiding head-to-head contact.

I don't want to go round and round on this. I've said my part and I've given it a lot of thought, so I'm not likely to change my mind. You've probably thought it out too.

The only thing I can say further though is that leagues are looking to get rid of these plays, so even if it's the football and hockey that we all grew up with, it's going to change and I have no problem with the change as I prefer the strategy and playmaking of sports more than the abject violence anyway.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not opposed to change, particularly when new medical evidence comes to light. But when pondering new rules/enforcement standards, it's really important that the changes be clear, and thus fair to all concerned.

IMHO, the "pancake block" is a legitimate part of D-1 Football. Yet I also agree that targeting a knee or the head should be considered an illegal means to that end. Those are dirty hits, even if they weren't always seen as such. But if you want to further expand the category of dirty hits, then I still believe we need clear, specific rules, capable of being consistently enforced.

With that I've said my piece as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top