Here's your problem with using that rule for your argument. I'm not so sure that statement can be so easily applied to this particular play.
Hit on John Parker
- Thread starter Alabama Larry in Ky
- Start date
Here's your problem with using that rule for your argument. I'm not so sure that statement can be so easily applied to this particular play.
Mooo...just kidding!
I thought the same thing (about the LB) and apparently so did the ref. :BigA:
I listed that rule in response to the following comment made by 12_4thetide:
There is, indeed, an infraction in the rulebook regarding hitting someone out of bounds. My "argument" was that there is an infraction in the rule book that covers hitting someone out of bounds.
And, while maybe not so easily, it does apply to that play on the sideline. If there were an infraction, that would be it. JPW seemed to think he was hit out of bounds. As do many others.
When an opposing LB lays the wood on a QB that is not fighting for extra yardage, but instead yielding by running out-of-bounds, it is a breach of the "implied" rules of sportsmanship, even if the hit is technically legal.
The best way to handle that is to run a few plays directly at the LB and let your monster FB clean his clock so badly that he still feels it a couple of weeks later.
The best way to handle that is to run a few plays directly at the LB and let your monster FB clean his clock so badly that he still feels it a couple of weeks later.
So let me get this right, if JPW thinks he's out of bounds, but the whistle hasn't been blown, the linebacker should automatically assume JPW is out of bounds and let up?
Here's the bottom line: JPW let up too close to the sideline and got reamed for it. Next time, he'd better make sure he's clearly out of bounds before he gets off of his horse. I wouldn't ask any less of my linebackers if I were a coach. Here's a scenario:
Mike Shula: "Hey, Juwan! If it even remotely looks as if a quarterback, receiver, or running back is near the sideline and he slows his speed, you had better not hit him!"
Juwan: "But coach, the whistle hadn't been blown, I was running full speed, and what if he'd cut it back upfield for a couple more yards?"
Mike Shula: "I don't care, Juwan. We don't want to run the risk of a penalty being called. Next time, just hope he runs up the middle of the field so we don't have to speculate whether to hit him or not.":rolleye2:
Please link me to the "Implied Rules Handbook of Collegiate Officiating". Please link me directly to the "implied" rules that constitute a flag being thrown.
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. The play is dead when the player steps out of bounds, but it is signaled to the other players with a whistle. If the play is bang-bang and before the whistle and the ref feels it was not unnecessary then he usually won’t throw a flag, and he didn’t. TommyMac is trying to be clever by getting online and looking at the rule book but anyone can do that and there are loop holes to every rule, you could back and forth all day. It all comes down to an official’s judgment. If not, there would be no need for officials. This is a no brainer. The call in the au/lsu game was questionable and the sec released a statement despite the fact they backed the call. The sec said nothing about the call, or non-call in this case, in the Ark game. Because there was no need. If this was Simpson hitting Mustain and a flag was thrown everyone arguing would be livid. I bet no one pulled up on Matt Jones until he was clearly out of bounds!
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...
So let me get this right, if JPW thinks he's out of bounds, but the whistle hasn't been blown, the linebacker should automatically assume JPW is out of bounds and let up?
Here's a scenario:
Mike Shula: "Hey, Juwan! If it even remotely looks as if a quarterback, receiver, or running back is near the sideline and he slows his speed, you had better not hit him!"
Juwan: "But coach, the whistle hadn't been blown, I was running full speed, and what if he'd cut it back upfield for a couple more yards?"
Mike Shula: "I don't care, Juwan. We don't want to run the risk of a penalty being called. Next time, just hope he runs up the middle of the field so we don't have to speculate whether to hit him or not.":rolleye2:
well put
Perhaps you should re-read my post.
I didn't say that a flag should be thrown. What I stated was that although a hit in-bounds on a QB that is clearly throwing in the towel and NOT attempting to make more yards is legal(that means that no flag should be thrown), it would be judged to be against most players' idea of good sportsmanship and therefore should be handled in a completely legal way on the field by just flat out plowing asunder the player that made the legal, yet somewhat cheap hit.
Illegal and excessive are not synonomous.
So let me get this right, if JPW thinks he's out of bounds, but the whistle hasn't been blown, the linebacker should automatically assume JPW is out of bounds and let up?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Inserting emotional reactions isn't a reliable method of reaching objective truth.
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.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Revealing 2026's Prospect X, his unique backstory and dramatic NFL draft journey- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Notre Dame heads into 2026 with a QB it hasn't had in a long time
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: La. Tech cleared for move to Sun Belt this summer
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: The best, worst and most confusing of the 2026 draft: Our experts answer 29 questions
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Ex-Bama DT pleads guilty after posing as NFLers
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0