Jump to content

Redblacks at Back2Back Champs GDT


Recommended Posts

It’s not intent but the rule is that you can’t lower your head to initiate contact and can’t contact head and neck as the primary point of contact at all on any ball carrier.

 

They should flag this like crazy until there is compliance.  They don’t want guys sticking their head in rather than actually tackling, that’s how you end up with more Hefney’s with neck injuries.  There’s also the CTE issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

It’s not intent but the rule is that you can’t lower your head to initiate contact and can’t contact head and neck as the primary point of contact at all on any ball carrier.

 

They should flag this like crazy until there is compliance.  They don’t want guys sticking their head in rather than actually tackling, that’s how you end up with more Hefney’s with neck injuries.  There’s also the CTE issue.

If flagging every instance did nothing more than teach players to wrap up and tackle rather than throwing shoulder checks, I’m all for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Looks like I didn't read far enough. I stopped at f when g was the answer. Based on this information, I change my opinion. It was a UR penalty.

It has nothing to do with intent.

sorry...but yeah it does...and it is very easy to see a head shot that was the intent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Booch said:

sorry...but yeah it does...and it is very easy to see a head shot that was the intent

Not sorry, but you're wrong. Intent isn't part of any rule for good reason. Refs can't even get off side right all the time. They can't be expected to decide on intent on a hit in real time. Show me the intent rule and I'll change my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Not sorry, but you're wrong. Intent isn't part of any rule for good reason. Refs can't even get off side right all the time. They can't be expected to decide on intent on a hit in real time. Show me the intent rule and I'll change my mind.

never siad it was part of the rule dude....but it will be fined and called as such if they see it....and dont blatantly miss it...it's a judgement call much like most PI's which are  at times missed...or ticky tack..and btw....got that from CFL coaches who were told that so take it for what its worth I guess....and also told that Eye in sky can overrule, or come in with a call as well....same way they can yank a guy for injury assesment...but we all know how craptacular all mentioned are....also we all know u will dispute..argue...twisat and whatever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Booch said:

never siad it was part of the rule dude....but it will be fined and called as such if they see it....and dont blatantly miss it...it's a judgement call much like most PI's which are  at times missed...or ticky tack..and btw....got that from CFL coaches who were told that so take it for what its worth I guess....and also told that Eye in sky can overrule, or come in with a call as well....same way they can yank a guy for injury assesment...but we all know how craptacular all mentioned are....also we all know u will dispute..argue...twisat and whatever

You're arguing something that can't be proven one way or the other. I'm arguing the rule and you admit it's not a rule then complain that I'm the one who is arguing and twisat'ing whatever that is. You're the one who keeps bringing intent and targeting up. Leave it alone and we'll have nothing to argue about. Keep bringing it up, and I'll keep replying. As usual the arguing is up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

You're arguing something that can't be proven one way or the other. I'm arguing the rule and you admit it's not a rule then complain that I'm the one who is arguing and twisat'ing whatever that is. You're the one who keeps bringing intent and targeting up. Leave it alone and we'll have nothing to argue about. Keep bringing it up, and I'll keep replying. As usual the arguing is up to you.

as he argues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Not sorry, but you're wrong. Intent isn't part of any rule for good reason. Refs can't even get off side right all the time. They can't be expected to decide on intent on a hit in real time. Show me the intent rule and I'll change my mind.

INTENTional grounding. Intent. Point set and match. 😇

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all I know is that Staff's have been informed that if intent is determined by on and or off field officials....it will be called sans any "verbage" in aforementioned rulebook quoting....all I gonna say as I got that from actual coaches in the league....so I will go with that rather than a chronic arguer and habitual challenger on a message forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like intentional grounding. Nice.

Not written is the definition of not a rule.

There's a group of folks who argue all the time, including Booch. It's not just me, but a certain group loves to complain about me arguing with them. Talk about lack of self awareness.

Every hit is both intentional and targeted. What folks are really saying is targeting the head or neck. Guess what? According to the rules if you hit the head or neck, you get a penalty, targeted or not, intentional or not. Why would would you even need/want to figure out intent? UR, intent or not, is a 15 yard penalty anyway.

'Intent' for a fine after the fact. Sure. Why not? You get a chance to see the hit in multiple angles and in slow motion. Might be why players get fines for hits that aren't penalties in game. Although in this case it was the blow to the head that was missed in game.

Rules should be binary. On side or off side. In or out. Within 5 yards or not. Hit the head/neck or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I like intentional grounding. Nice.

Not written is the definition of not a rule.

There's a group of folks who argue all the time, including Booch. It's not just me, but a certain group loves to complain about me arguing with them. Talk about lack of self awareness.

Every hit is both intentional and targeted. What folks are really saying is targeting the head or neck. Guess what? According to the rules if you hit the head or neck, you get a penalty, targeted or not, intentional or not. Why would would you even need/want to figure out intent? UR, intent or not, is a 15 yard penalty anyway.

'Intent' for a fine after the fact. Sure. Why not? You get a chance to see the hit in multiple angles and in slow motion. Might be why players get fines for hits that aren't penalties in game. Although in this case it was the blow to the head that was missed in game.

Rules should be binary. On side or off side. In or out. Within 5 yards or not. Hit the head/neck or not. 

I completely agree with you on this one. Black and white. Sort out intention in the extra discipline department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side note I’d be in favour of any contact to the head of any player or leading with the head be an automatic penalty and first down. 
 It’d be rough at first but with in a generation wed see a dramatic up tick in grass roots participation and a big reduction in concussions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

As a side note I’d be in favour of any contact to the head of any player or leading with the head be an automatic penalty and first down. 
 It’d be rough at first but with in a generation wed see a dramatic up tick in grass roots participation and a big reduction in concussions. 

In a perfect world I’d agree, but the first time a QB ducked into a sack and exposed his head to contact to draw a defensive penalty, or there is dispute about “head” vs “shoulder” point of impact (see Brandon Alexander against Toronto last year) that hurts your home team, watch the fans boards go ballistic and scream for a return to the old rule.  

Edited by TrueBlue4ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

In a perfect world I’d agree, but the first time a QB ducked into a sack and exposed his head to contact to draw a defensive penalty, or there is dispute about “head” vs “shoulder” point of impact (see Brandon Alexander against Toronto last year) that hurts your home team, watch the fans boards go ballistic and scream for a return to the old rule.  

I’d also see spearing called on the offense. Which is what that is.  
 Every thing above the shoulders is the head. 
 

I think at least doing this through school prior to college would be good actually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

I’d also see spearing called on the offense. Which is what that is.  
 Every thing above the shoulders is the head. 
 

I think at least doing this through school prior to college would be good actually. 

I would love to see a return to good old fashioned wrap up tackling techniques rather than the “kill shot” shoulder checks so many DBs throw these days. So I would be on board with your rule change for that purpose alone. I wonder if we will ever see a change to flag football flags, at least for QBs, to protect them from harm during sacks (since they are more immobile than other players and can be teed off on more easily). 

Edited by TrueBlue4ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...