This is the actual NCAA definition of a "defenseless player..."

Alasippi

Suspended
Aug 31, 2007
12,875
2
57
Ocean Springs, MS
That is one of the vaguest rules I've ever read and isn't really fair to the officials having to make the call.
Maybe, after the hit, the official can ask the blockee, "Excuse me son, did you have a focus of concentration?"..lol
That'll straighten it all out.
 

Alasippi

Suspended
Aug 31, 2007
12,875
2
57
Ocean Springs, MS
I posted this on the other thread but I think it applies here...

Ultimately I think they will go to a simplified rule much like they did with the face mask penalty. Instead of an inadvertent or intentional judgement call the NCAA simply changed it to "If you grab the face mask it's 15 yards".
I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see a rule that reads something like, "Any blindside block above the shoulders is a penalty".
What's amazing to me is that the NCAA actually forced the higher tackling and blocking techniques many years ago when, because of a rash of knee injuries they made it practically illegal to tackle or block anyone below the waist. It's an ever evolving game I guess.
 

dvldog

Hall of Fame
Sep 20, 2005
6,569
346
107
72
Virginia
Looking at some of the pics I've seen posted, he was TOTALLY focused on Dial about a half second before the hit. His eyes got big as moon pies!
 

gwilliams

1st Team
Aug 29, 2011
462
0
0
Dial is so much bigger and stronger that Murray bounced off Dial like a spring. Murray is actually kind of small.
 

RTRinBR

3rd Team
Jan 27, 2003
206
23
142
49
Baton Rouge, LA USA
Bottom line, if this exact block had been thrown on kick coverage this would be a complete non issue. The man was a defender at the point he was popped. Just my 2 cents. Worth what you paid for it.
 

bamaga

Hall of Fame
Apr 29, 2002
13,378
8,238
282
JAWJA
what is to be gained by the University of Georgia asking the SEC to look at this hit. that is what is being reported here in Atlanta. It is like Uga is looking for official justification for the loss.
 

bamafaninOhiO

All-American
May 11, 2010
2,114
0
0
Dayton, Ohio
LOL! Visit their pages and see how many single causes they've identified. Basically they just ran out of time. Every once in a while, someone will remember that they had 350 yds rushing put on them...
yeah, the loss hurts, and they're looking for something that makes it hurt less.

The fact is, some calls went for them, some against them...just like us.

but giving up 350 yards rushing? c'mon, you gotta know what lost the game for you when that happens.
 

CapstoneTider

Suspended
Dec 6, 2000
7,453
6
0
With the way we operate these days I could see the rule changed from

"one who because his physical position and focus of concentrationis especially vulnerable to injury."

to

"one who because his physical condition and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury."

It makes for a more fair playing field for everyone no matter your size!
 

fundytide

1st Team
Oct 22, 1999
661
0
0
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
I decided to make a new thread because it's becoming obvious that folks are posting in threads and not bothering to read any posts above where they're inserting a new post. Like it or not, here's what the NCAA says in its definition: "one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury." As you can see, it's ridiculous. It can cover any player who happens to be looking in the other direction. (IOW, no crackbacks.) In Shaw's statement, I can't tell if he's saying that Dial led with his helmet (I happen to think he didn't, no matter what Steve says) or if Murray were defenseless because he was off i La-La land...
Good point, Earle. So, two conditions have to be simultaneously met (physical position AND focus of concentration). It seems to me that in the case of Dial hitting Murray, BOTH are not met. Murray is jogging toward the ball carrier (Dix) so his physical position is not 'defenseless' by any stretch of the imagination. It's not like he is layed-out, airborne trying to catch a pass.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,527
39,615
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Good point, Earle. So, two conditions have to be simultaneously met (physical position AND focus of concentration). It seems to me that in the case of Dial hitting Murray, BOTH are not met. Murray is jogging toward the ball carrier (Dix) so his physical position is not 'defenseless' by any stretch of the imagination. It's not like he is layed-out, airborne trying to catch a pass.
I think no flag was thrown for two reasons. First, the official could see that Dial actually turned and led with his shoulder, and as been pointed out, at his height, some helmet to helmet contact was inevitable. The second reason is that, even though Murray was distracted, he had absolutely no right to be so. I see a lot of the UGA boards that he wasn't involved in the play. Well, he should have been. He should have been attempting a tackle. Shaw's statement makes zero sense. First he says that they to break it down frame by frame, which they haven't done yet, then he states that it should have been flagged as a PF. On what grounds? And how does he know at a glance, without breaking it down. Talk about muddying the water...
 

CapstoneTider

Suspended
Dec 6, 2000
7,453
6
0
.....I see a lot of the UGA boards that he wasn't involved in the play. Well, he should have been. He should have been attempting a tackle.....
We should not assume players like QB's and kickers are bystanders after their "role" is over all of the time. I saw Foster make a vicious tackle in the Auburn game. It looked so natural that Verne and Gary didn't notice it was Cade who made the solo tackle.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,527
39,615
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
We should not assume players like QB's and kickers are bystanders after their "role" is over all of the time. I saw Foster make a vicious tackle in the Auburn game. It looked so natural that Verne and Gary didn't notice it was Cade who made the solo tackle.
Back several years ago, the last Colquitt in that line of punters that UT had was prancing around like a drum major in front of our bench after he'd punted and the ball was still live. One of our guys - it may have been Harper - almost knocked him out of his jockstrap. He kept his head on a swivel after that...
 

CapstoneTider

Suspended
Dec 6, 2000
7,453
6
0
Back several years ago, the last Colquitt in that line of punters that UT had was prancing around like a drum major in front of our bench after he'd punted and the ball was still live. One of our guys - it may have been Harper - almost knocked him out of his jockstrap. He kept his head on a swivel after that...
Roman is a goodie. Yeah those Colquitt's kept coming, he was probably waiving at his siblings. Which I could see that :p_smile:
 

fundytide

1st Team
Oct 22, 1999
661
0
0
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
I think no flag was thrown for two reasons. First, the official could see that Dial actually turned and led with his shoulder, and as been pointed out, at his height, some helmet to helmet contact was inevitable. The second reason is that, even though Murray was distracted, he had absolutely no right to be so. I see a lot of the UGA boards that he wasn't involved in the play. Well, he should have been. He should have been attempting a tackle. Shaw's statement makes zero sense. First he says that they to break it down frame by frame, which they haven't done yet, then he states that it should have been flagged as a PF. On what grounds? And how does he know at a glance, without breaking it down. Talk about muddying the water...
If you use the Baccari Rambo tackling standard, one could argue that Murray WAS involved in the play. Murray wanted a piece of Dix about as much as Rambo wanted a piece of Lacy in the open field. :biggrin:

In my opinion, Dial's block was on the edge but it doesn't quite meet any of the standards necessary to be either a penalty or punishable action.
 

CapstoneTider

Suspended
Dec 6, 2000
7,453
6
0
If you use the Baccari Rambo tackling standard, one could argue that Murray WAS involved in the play. Murray wanted a piece of Dix about as much as Rambo wanted a piece of Lacy in the open field. :biggrin:

In my opinion, Dial's block was on the edge but it doesn't quite meet any of the standards necessary to be either a penalty or punishable action.
What should he have done? A. Block him lightly B. Bypass him and block #4? C. Just stand there and think about it.

I really believe he did the the instinctual thing that has been coached to him over the years. And it really looks like a clean hit, so the only argument is if players should take pity when delivering a blow, and is that what we want football to become?
 

fundytide

1st Team
Oct 22, 1999
661
0
0
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
What should he have done? A. Block him lightly B. Bypass him and block #4? C. Just stand there and think about it.

I really believe he did the the instinctual thing that has been coached to him over the years. And it really looks like a clean hit, so the only argument is if players should take pity when delivering a blow, and is that what we want football to become?
Totally agree. What looks to me to be really close is whether it was intentional helmet to helmet. When I watch it, I don't think it is but it does look like Dial's helmet might have hit Murray's helmet at the same time that Dial's shoulder hit Murray's chest.

If Murray had started walking to the bench instead of drifting toward the ball carrier and Dial nailed him, I might feel differently but if Murray goes soft into a potential tackle, he shouldn't expect a Bama blocker to go soft into the block.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.