Hit on John Parker - Page 5

IH8Orange · September 29th, 2006, 10:27 AM

	Quote:	NYBamaFan
	While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that the players are likely to think that way in the heat of the game. When a defensive player gets a chance to lay wood on any offensive player, they do so, especially the more aggressive players. The more frustrated the defensive player might be, the more "emphasis" he is likely to put into the hit. If JPW wants to avoid injuries over the next 3 years, he need to learn to slide, throw the ball away, and get out of bounds when being pursued. Thinking that the defender might lay off will only get him hurt...

I don't disagree with you at all.

When an opposing player makes a hit that was completely unnecessary, it is up to the team to make him think before he does it again. I didn't see the retribution, but I'm sure that it occurred. It generally does.

Maybe Andre got the retribution on that LB on the reverse.

12_4thetide · September 29th, 2006, 10:29 AM

	Quote:	trenda
	No need to try to get it right. You already have your opinion of what happened. The bottom line as I see it is that if it were as plain and clear as you claim, no one would be commenting on it other than the fact that he got his clock cleaned. The fact that JPW - who was involved in the play - as well as coaches and many other onlookers thought it was questionable makes it debatable. Out of bounds is out of bounds. Whether it is two inches or two feet.

He was out of bounds. The part that is plain as day is he was attempting to hit him inbounds and not trying to be dirty. The refs saw this and threw no flag. If a ball carrier is going to walk the line until the last second I like that, he has to expect to get hit. Watch ESPN, get on rolltide.com, no one is commenting about except on this board.

trenda · September 29th, 2006, 10:40 AM

	Quote:	12_4thetide
	Yes it is a “rule” you can’t hit someone out bounds. The “infraction” or “penalty” enforced is unnecessary roughness. i.e. I’m sure it’s stated that a lineman cant come out of his stance once he puts his hand on the ground. That’s a “rule.” The “infraction” or “penalty” is false start, not the player came out of his stance.

Actually, the "rule" is that you cannot hit someone out of bounds, which is called a "personal foul". The "infraction" would be actually hitting someone out of bounds (or false start, as you alluded to in your other example). The "penalty" would be "15 yards from the basic spot or succeeding spot for deadball fouls and a first down for Team B fouls if the first down is not in conflict with other rules."

Infraction and penalty do not have the same meaning. You are penalized because of an infraction. The infraction occurs from not following the rules.

Speaking of the rules . . . As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree because this thread is going nowhere.

12_4thetide · September 29th, 2006, 10:58 AM

	Quote:	trenda
	Actually, the "rule" is that you cannot hit someone out of bounds, which is called a "personal foul". The "infraction" would be actually hitting someone out of bounds (or false start, as you alluded to in your other example). The "penalty" would be "15 yards from the basic spot or succeeding spot for deadball fouls and a first down for Team B fouls if the first down is not in conflict with other rules." Infraction and penalty do not have the same meaning. You are penalized because of an infraction. The infraction occurs from not following the rules. Speaking of the rules . . . As for the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree because this thread is going nowhere.

You are exactly right. That's is why I preceded "rule" with "infraction." I stated the technical term, then the commonly used term. When someone commits an act for which they are penalized, it is commonly referred to as a "penalty." The point was to establish that "Infractions" are determined by the "rules" on a judgment from the officials.

AlexanderFan · September 29th, 2006, 11:26 AM

Blah this rule, blah that rule. Time to decide this once and for all with the "your child" theory.

If your child was a quarterback in a pee-wee football game would you want him leveled that close to the sidelines by an opposing player?

If that was your child in a pee-wee football game that leveled the qb on the sidelines just as it happened in the Arkansas game, would you jump up in the stands and yell, "THAT'S MY CHILD!"

The answer for both of these questions is a resounding NO! Therefore the hit was illegal and the only reason it wasn't called is homefield advantage.

johnnychristmas · September 29th, 2006, 11:35 AM

Well I think we've beat this dead horse enough.

cbi1972 · September 29th, 2006, 11:41 AM

	Quote:	AlexanderFan
	Blah this rule, blah that rule. Time to decide this once and for all with the "your child" theory.

Inserting emotional reactions isn't a reliable method of reaching objective truth.

AlexanderFan · September 29th, 2006, 12:08 PM

The objective truth is not being questioned: John Parker Wilson is clearly out of bounds when he is hit. The question is whether or not the referee should have called the foul. My scenenario was an attempt to provide a gauge by which to determine if the call should have been made. Using my scenenario I personally would not have been proud of my child for hitting someone out of bounds. Therefore I think the penalty should have been called. I agree football is a rough sport, but the sport stays on the field, not on the sidelines and should be conducted as such. All this "he could've turned upfield" nonsense is just that, nonsense. JPW is not a running threat, especially not when the LB had the angle and far superior speed. Not even a healthy Tyrone Prothro could've cut back upfield at the angle JPW took to reach the sidelines. This was just a cheap shot, much akin to what goes on in the assorted pile ups and fumbles during a regular football game. Arkansas was given the benefit of the doubt due to the game being in Hogville, Arkansas.

92tide · September 29th, 2006, 12:21 PM

	Quote:
	Well I think we've beat this dead horse enough.

but was he in bounds when you hit him?

BoarnSupremacy · September 29th, 2006, 12:23 PM

"move on" and focus on Florida? It was a good hit. When the QB decides to try to run for yardage he should expect contact as long as he is trying to gain an extra inch. The momentum of the tackler has to be considered.

Alabama Larry in Ky · October 1st, 2006, 04:56 PM

Like I said in one post...wait until Saturday watch some games and see if any linebackers pull up on a running QB and I saw several do it. That was the main thought of the post, not whether or not he was in or out of bounds, but should he have pulled up and I though he could have. Go Bama Beat the Devils.