Therezie's hits?

[ausoldiergrad 57]

First of all, I love RT. Now having said that, under the new rules (the willful neutering of the game of football), I can't believe that that second hit didn't get him flagged/tossed. On replay, the first one looked pretty clean b/c the receiver had time to look RT in the eyes before he got trucked but on the second, he looked pretty damn defenseless to me. Both hits were helmet to helmet. Loved seeing it, and when I was in school, those would have just been great plays, but now that could have cost us one of our best defensive playmakers for this game and half of the next. What say you?

[Plaric 4]

If the ref didn't see it....and it is something OUR player did.....I didn't see it....soooooooo, whatcha talk about man? I saw nothing but perfectly legal hits

[TexasTiger 12,831]

I guess I don't understand "defenseless." It looked liked great tackles to me.

[around4ever 4,139]

I thought the first one was clean. More shoulder to shoulder. The second one was questionable and I honestly was expecting the flag on it. I'm sure the Coaches will have a word with him about that.

[AUFightingSoldiers 685]

Those hits are what we like to call tone-setters.

[Ronin 2]

I thought the same thing as the OP. My hope is that the coaches evaluate it and make recommendations to him. If he's doing what they want then fine and if he isn't then he may need to sit out some time. I'm guessing the announcers are closer to the situation than we are and it sounds like they've heard confusion and complaints from coaches. If they aren't blowing it out of proportion then I wonder if there will be changes to the rule after this year.

[ausoldiergrad 57]

I guess I don't understand "defenseless." It looked liked great tackles to me.

"Defenseless" means (according to the sissies in suits) that the mean man hit him when he wasn't looking and didn't know when to pucker up his butthole.

[gilstein21 1]

I thought the first one was clean. More shoulder to shoulder. The second one was questionable and I honestly was expecting the flag on it. I'm sure the Coaches will have a word with him about that.

same here. There was nothing wrong with the first one. The second one was close enough that I thought a flag could have been thrown and then reviewed. I never really saw a replay of the second one to get a good second look though.

[around4ever 4,139]

I thought the same thing as the OP. My hope is that the coaches evaluate it and make recommendations to him. If he's doing what they want then fine and if he isn't then he may need to sit out some time. I'm guessing the announcers are closer to the situation than we are and it sounds like they've heard confusion and complaints from coaches. If they aren't blowing it out of proportion then I wonder if there will be changes to the rule after this year.

There will be changes. The rule won't go away but there will be changes in the way it is called, reviewed and instituted.

[FHeal 4]

**** yep

Problem with the call is it'a too subjective.

[3rdgeneration 6,469]

I saw a coach talking to RT on the sideline after one of those hits. I am sure they will be talking some more. I honestly couldn't tell whether they were helmet to helmet or not. But both of them sure made a loud noise!

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

First of all, I love RT. Now having said that, under the new rules (the willful neutering of the game of football), I can't believe that that second hit didn't get him flagged/tossed. On replay, the first one looked pretty clean b/c the receiver had time to look RT in the eyes before he got trucked but on the second, he looked pretty damn defenseless to me. Both hits were helmet to helmet. Loved seeing it, and when I was in school, those would have just been great plays, but now that could have cost us one of our best defensive playmakers for this game and half of the next. What say you?

Don't know if you are just jawing or what, but it is pretty obvious if you go back and look, his first impact is with his forarm, so there is no foul. FWIW. And in case you are going to argue the no horse-collar foul, Frost had two hands on him so thats why there was no call on it either. Both no calls were absolutly correct. What they did miss was about 10 + holding calls on TAM's offense especially down field on the corners. But none of it matters, it's a win in the books. WDE

[around4ever 4,139]

I guess I don't understand "defenseless." It looked liked great tackles to me.

"Defenseless" means (according to the sissies in suits) that the mean man hit him when he wasn't looking and didn't know when to pucker up his butthole.

[tdburger 37]

I guess I don't understand "defenseless." It looked liked great tackles to me.

"Defenseless" means (according to the sissies in suits) that the mean man hit him when he wasn't looking and didn't know when to pucker up his butthole.

[ausoldiergrad 57]

I thought the same thing as the OP. My hope is that the coaches evaluate it and make recommendations to him. If he's doing what they want then fine and if he isn't then he may need to sit out some time. I'm guessing the announcers are closer to the situation than we are and it sounds like they've heard confusion and complaints from coaches. If they aren't blowing it out of proportion then I wonder if there will be changes to the rule after this year.

There should be. Football is starting to overregulate the game of football to the point where many calls are purely subjective. That said, the officials tonight did a great job letting the guys play. We didn't get flagged on those 2 hits, or a borderline horse collar, and they got away with holding pretty much all night. I'm glad that game didn't get diminished by over eager refs injecting themselves into the game.

[Weegle777 78]

Surprised the second hit wasn't flagged.

[ausoldiergrad 57]

Huh...it took me so long to write that last post that about five of you wrote what I was about to say. Well then...we're in agreement. I'm hungry.

[C'viewTiger 242]

I thought the first one was clean. More shoulder to shoulder. The second one was questionable and I honestly was expecting the flag on it. I'm sure the Coaches will have a word with him about that.

Agree, first one was more shoulder to shoulder, helmet may have touched but contact was with shoulders. Second, I kept waiting for the flag. Was pleasantly surprised.

[augolf1716 21,109]

Its all so judgemental no one knows exactly what to call at times

[mattd 3]

On the first the receiver had turned and taken2 steps, I don't consider that defenseless. If he's hanging in the air trying to make a catch, ok maybe

[NoALtiger 3,850]

D players are gonna have to start asking for permission to hit pretty soon. Maybe write a nice note to the ref, perhaps email the opposing coach, or text the opposing players Mom for permission to hit her son. Obvious cheap hits are one thing but this "targeting" rule is just stupid. I guarantee you it will be looked at and slightly revised this offseason. It just doesn't work as written.

[around4ever 4,139]

The coaches on the rules committee instituted this rule. When the heads of officials saw it they tried to get it changed before the season. They knew it would be impossible to enforce uniformly. Maybe a representative form the Officials should be on the rules committee since they are the ones that have to enforce the rules. I don't know, it's just a thought.

[WarTiger 3,901]

First of all, I love RT. Now having said that, under the new rules (the willful neutering of the game of football), I can't believe that that second hit didn't get him flagged/tossed. On replay, the first one looked pretty clean b/c the receiver had time to look RT in the eyes before he got trucked but on the second, he looked pretty damn defenseless to me. Both hits were helmet to helmet. Loved seeing it, and when I was in school, those would have just been great plays, but now that could have cost us one of our best defensive playmakers for this game and half of the next. What say you?

Don't know if you are just jawing or what, but it is pretty obvious if you go back and look, his first impact is with his forarm, so there is no foul. FWIW. And in case you are going to argue the no horse-collar foul, Frost had two hands on him so thats why there was no call on it either. Both no calls were absolutly correct. What they did miss was about 10 + holding calls on TAM's offense especially down field on the corners. But none of it matters, it's a win in the books. WDE

Hate to burst your bubble but him having two hands on him has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it was a penalty or not.

[AubTiger14 0]

I thought the first one was clean. The second one definitely could've gotten a flag but hey...war eagle

[BornaTiger 0]

I guess I don't understand "defenseless." It looked liked great tackles to me.

"Defenseless" means (according to the sissies in suits) that the mean man hit him when he wasn't looking and didn't know when to pucker up his butthole.

:laugh:/>

Nailed it!