'Tackling' a ball carrier by tripping him is the least football move I can think of. Except maybe tying his shoelaces together.
I like less rules and I disagree with your overwhelming approval of a rebuttal "what I want". Your point is that every block or hit should be 100%, no matter the situation, my point is that I believe Dial new this was a player in a compromised situation, he knew who he was and the threat level, and intended more than to disrupt Murray from getting the tackle, look at it. It's about consciousness, and if we had more, we would have less rules......Cheap Shot lol. Glad is was them.
Absolutely - he was attempting to 'affect the QB' with a legal hit. You might have heard that phrase before...
Go light on me friend, but yes I do. I think if players were a little more conscious of situations, we would need less rules. Now remember this is an opinion from someone that believes going back to leather helmets is how to prevent head injuries. Take away false protection, and you don't hit with your head, but that is a different topic.
The QB was following the play, agreed from afar. Had it come in his direction, he was in a position to throw a block. If he wants to not get hit, he can:
It was not necessary, did him no good, did Murray no good, nor did it do our QB any favors. If I was an opposing DL, I would get revenge. Similar to a pitcher throwing inside for effect. Maybe Cheap Shot, and plays like that are what lead to more rules. The speed and size of players has widened, the QB is looked at as more of a specialist these days, unless you want Cam Newton to be the new norm. I am in favor of protecting them without hurting the game. But yes, I see this as more of a cheap shot, than a non cheap shot. I am fully aware that it is legal in college, that is not my point.
All in good spirit and debate. Ready to read all dissent and take it like Murray!
Have you just ignored the posts acknowledging Cooper Bateman taking a similar hit against Ole Miss?I do know this. Since this is a Bama player, I am automatically going to lose favor with public opinion. Just wonder what the consensus would be if it took our QB out for the season, hypothetically. Would most say it was a cheap shot, I know the answer to that. I have stated an opinion and have nothing else to say
Look, I get it that you think pretty highly of your own opinions and such, but instead of trying to infer that I'm ignorant, maybe you should consider that you're just wrong.
Right, and illegal procedure and false start and delay of game and illegal substitution and ineligible receiver downfield etc etc - because those were definitely the rules I was referring to when when I spoke about mitigating risk and bodily harm. If you don't intend to use even rudimentary inference skills, why post?
You clearly haven't read my posts. I'll not repeat myself if you're not actually interested in being thorough. But you'll find all the info above to see my complete position and how I perceive the rule.
Some of the illegal blocking rules (merely a "for instance", btw) ARE designed to prevent injuries and nothing more. So, while you decided to dismiss this fact in order to try and belittle me, it is still a fact, and has nothing to do with penalties along the lines of "illegal substitution, and ineligible receiver downfield etc etc". Thanks for the swell eyeroll, and have a nice day.
