SEC doesn't suspend Quinton Dial for BCS Championship Game

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

http://sports.yahoo....925--ncaaf.html

SEC decides to not suspend Quinton Dial for BCS Championship Game

By Frank Schwab | Dr. Saturday – Fri, Dec 14, 2012 10:44 AM EST

The SEC has taken a stance on player safety, suspending a couple players for illegal hits this season to send a message. Then the conference had to review a very questionable hit from the SEC Championship Game and sent another message: Go Alabama!

Alabama's Quinton Dial led with his helmet and led with his helmet to hit Georgia quarterback Aaron Murray after an interception. That play took place almost two weeks ago, but the conference was mostly silent until today, when it announced Dial won't be suspended. Dial's next game is the BCS Championship Game against Notre Dame. Isn't that convenient.

When the SEC did pretend to care about player safety, it issued out some suspensions. Take a look at the video of a couple hits that led to a one-game ban earlier this season.

Here's Ole Miss' Trae Elston:

And South Carolina's D.J. Swearinger:

The biggest difference between these plays and Dial's hit? Well, for one, Elston and Swearinger weren't going to be trying to win another national title for the SEC in their next games.

The SEC admitted with no doubt to AL.com that the hit was illegal and should have been penalized. There's no need to debate that much further. But when it came time to judge whether it was worthy of a suspension ("What the determination needs to be is was this a defenseless player and was contact initiated above the shoulders?" SEC coordinator of officials Steve Shaw said about a possible suspension to AL.com when he admitted the play should have drawn a flag), the conference decided that any further action was "handled internally," by the schools and the conference was satisfied with that. So, what was a suspension earlier this season turns into running some stadium steps now, and we're supposed to believe it has nothing to do with Alabama having a BCS Championship Game next on its schedule?

Birmingham News columnist Kevin Scarbinsky tweeted highlights of a radio interview with Shaw in which he said Murray was a defender on the play so that hit - in which a clear helmet-to-helmet shot took place with the action going on about 10 yards away, a penalty the SEC claimed right away should have been a penalty and kept track of whether the schools "took disciplinary action" on their own - didn't deserve a suspension. Huh.

Look at the video again and decide for yourself. Was it a legal hit, or was it just deemed a legal hit because the SEC wants to beat Notre Dame for another title?

I'm really not surprised by this. The SEC wants to move the goal posts on what merits a suspension. Just because Murray turned into a defender doesn't mean it wasn't a dirty hit. Steve Shaw admitted it deserved a flag and was an illegal hit. .

So now we know that technically if an offensive player turns into a defender then helemt to helmet is ok and won't get you suspended. Let's hope Mike Slive and Steve Shaw can be consistent whenever it happens again.

They didn't suspend LaMichael Fanning after he body slammed the Missouri player and now Quinton Dial doesn't get suspended for a helmet to helmet hit on Aaron Murray.

[Weegle777 78]

No surprise. Different rules for bammer. Has always been this way.

[cptau 169]

The sec just lost some more credibility. If uat had any they would suspend him anyway.

[mec814 0]

The sec just lost some more credibility. If uat had any they would suspend him anyway.

The SEC offices need to be cleaned out of all the updyke scum and moved to Atlanta!

[Weegle777 78]

Probably just gave Dial some ice cream.

[AcUmen 242]

From the 2012 NCAA football rulebook:

PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERS AND CROWN-OF HELMET ACTION

In 2008, the committee introduced a separate rule prohibiting initiating contact with the helmet and targeting a defenseless opponent. These sections are now in two rules: Targeting/Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area (Rule 9-1-4). Use of the helmet as a weapon and intentional (targeted) contact to the head or neck area are serious safety concerns. Flagrant offenders must be disqualified from the game. The committee continues to emphasize that coaches and officials must be diligent to insure that players understand and abide by these rules. Rule 2-27-14 defines and lists characteristics of a defenseless player.

Now let's look at the three rules referenced above. First let's define a "defenseless player" as outlined by rule 2-27-14:

Rule 2-27 ARTICLE 14.

A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and

focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. Examples of defenseless

players are:

a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.

b. A receiver whose focus is on catching a pass.

c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball.

d. A kick returner whose focus is on catching or recovering a kick in the air.

e. A player on the ground at the end of a play.

f. A player obviously out of the play.

I think it is fair to say that Murray fit the qualifications of both "A" and "F."

Now let's look at the other two rules defining head-to-head contact and the penalty that should be enforced.

Rule 9-1-3:

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with

the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6.)

Rule 9-1-4:

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area

of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When

in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6).

Also, there is rule 9-1-12:

ARTICLE 12

a. No player shall tackle or run into a receiver when a forward

pass to him obviously is not catchable. This is a personal foul and not pass

interference.

b. No player shall run into or throw himself against an opponent obviously out

of the play either before or after the ball is dead

So, there are a few separate issues here. First, rule 9-1-3 clearly states that NO PLAYER shall initiate contact with the crown of his helmet EVER (defenseless or not). This rule states that even if it wasn't intentional a foul should be called by the refs. It's not clear that Dial initiated contact with the crown of his helmet, so it is questionable whether this rule applies to him or not. I will give Dial a pass on the "crown of the helmet" rule. However, see below.

Rule 9-1-4 is a bit different and states that a player cannot initiate contact to an opponent's head or neck area with ANY part of his body (not just his helmet) if that player is also defenseless (defenseless players are defined by rule 2-27-14). That means if a player is defenseless you cannot touch his head or neck area. Period. The bammer notion that "Dial was really leading with his shoulder and didn't mean to hit helmet-to-helmet" holds no water. The rule clearly states that shoulder-to-head is illegal if the player is defenseless.

So the question here is was Murray defenseless? I would argue yes. For one, he is a QB and had just thrown a pass (though this is debatable since the pass was intercepted and he hadn't "just" thrown the ball). But even more convincing is part "F" where it says a "player clearly out of the play." I think it is OBVIOUS that Murray was clearly out of the play and was actually in the act of heading for the sidelines (he was jogging along at like 4 MPH). He was not trying to tackle the ball carrier. Also the rule 9-1-12 says that a player that is "clearly out of the play" cannot be hit even if the ball is still live. So the bammer notion that Murray was fair game because the ball was live does NOT jive with the rulebook.

Moreover, the rule clearly states that "if there's any question" a flag should be thrown. It also says that guilty players should be ejected and suspended. Somehow the SEC officiating office either missed this part of the rulebook, ignored it, or both.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

So the conference is satisfied that Alabama is handling it "internally"?

So does this mean that Dial is going to have to write a letter and apologize to Murray like Fanning did to the Missouri player?

[kickerman97 3]

[cptau 169]

So the conference is satisfied that Alabama is handling it "internally"?

So does this mean that Dial is going to have to write a letter and apologize to Murray like Fanning did to the Missouri player? :laugh:/>

Nope uat will make him give up his next new suit of clothes

The sec benched 2 auburn players in 2010 for fighting. Uat gets a pass.

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

This doesn't surprise me.....but it does make me sick.

[WarTiger 3,987]

From the 2012 NCAA football rulebook: NCAA didn't release a rule book in 2012. The rule books are made for 2 years, and one was printed in 2011 that covers the 2011-2012 seasons. They do release a bulletin with 2012 changes, just not a complete rule book.

PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERS AND CROWN-OF HELMET ACTION

In 2008, the committee introduced a separate rule prohibiting initiating contact with the helmet and targeting a defenseless opponent. These sections are now in two rules: Targeting/Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area (Rule 9-1-4). Use of the helmet as a weapon and intentional (targeted) contact to the head or neck area are serious safety concerns. Flagrant offenders must be disqualified from the game. The committee continues to emphasize that coaches and officials must be diligent to insure that players understand and abide by these rules. Rule 2-27-14 defines and lists characteristics of a defenseless player.

Now let's look at the three rules referenced above. First let's define a "defenseless player" as outlined by rule 2-27-14:

Rule 2-27 ARTICLE 14.

A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and

focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. Examples of defenseless

players are:

a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This doesn't apply to the hit on Murray. You have to know when a player is considered to be a passer and when that status ends.

b. A receiver whose focus is on catching a pass.

c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball.

d. A kick returner whose focus is on catching or recovering a kick in the air.

e. A player on the ground at the end of a play.

f. A player obviously out of the play. This definitely applies.

I think it is fair to say that Murray fit the qualifications of both "A" and "F." NOPE....Only F

Now let's look at the other two rules defining head-to-head contact and the penalty that should be enforced.

Rule 9-1-3:

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with

the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6.)

Rule 9-1-4:

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area

of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When

in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6).

Also, there is rule 9-1-12:

ARTICLE 12

a. No player shall tackle or run into a receiver when a forward

pass to him obviously is not catchable. This is a personal foul and not pass

interference.

b. No player shall run into or throw himself against an opponent obviously out

of the play either before or after the ball is dead

So, there are a few separate issues here. First, rule 9-1-3 clearly states that NO PLAYER shall initiate contact with the crown of his helmet EVER (defenseless or not). This rule states that even if it wasn't intentional a foul should be called by the refs. It's not clear that Dial initiated contact with the crown of his helmet, so it is questionable whether this rule applies to him or not. I will give Dial a pass on the "crown of the helmet" rule. However, see below.

Rule 9-1-4 is a bit different and states that a player cannot initiate contact to an opponent's head or neck area with ANY part of his body (not just his helmet) if that player is also defenseless (defenseless players are defined by rule 2-27-14). That means if a player is defenseless you cannot touch his head or neck area. Period. The bammer notion that "Dial was really leading with his shoulder and didn't mean to hit helmet-to-helmet" holds no water. The rule clearly states that shoulder-to-head is illegal if the player is defenseless.

So the question here is was Murray defenseless? I would argue yes. For one, he is a QB and had just thrown a pass (though this is debatable since the pass was intercepted and he hadn't "just" thrown the ball). But even more convincing is part "F" where it says a "player clearly out of the play." I think it is OBVIOUS that Murray was clearly out of the play and was actually in the act of heading for the sidelines (he was jogging along at like 4 MPH). He was not trying to tackle the ball carrier. Also the rule 9-1-12 says that a player that is "clearly out of the play" cannot be hit even if the ball is still live. So the bammer notion that Murray was fair game because the ball was live does NOT jive with the rulebook. This is a common misconception with casual fans. They think that if you are on the field, you are fair game and any hit is legal. It's not and this one wasn't.

Moreover, the rule clearly states that "if there's any question" a flag should be thrown. It also says that guilty players should be ejected and suspended. Somehow the SEC officiating office either missed this part of the rulebook, ignored it, or both. No, it doesn't say that at all. There is nothing in the rule book that says the player should be suspended. Here is how the rule is written:

SECTION 6. Flagrant Personal Fouls

Player Ejection

ARTICLE 1. When a player is disqualified from the game due to a flagrant

personal foul, that team’s conference shall automatically initiate a video review

for possible additional sanctions before the next scheduled game.

Initiating Contact/Targeting an Opponent

ARTICLE 2. When there is a foul called for initiating contact/targeting

an opponent (Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4) that does not result in a player dis–

qualification, there shall automatically be a video review by the conference for

possible additional sanctions before the next scheduled game.

Foul Not Called

ARTICLE 3. If subsequent review of a game by a conference reveals plays

involving flagrant personal fouls that game officials did not call, the conference

may impose sanctions prior to the next scheduled game.

Nicely done, but I have a few corrections or clarifications. My comments in orange.

Also let me add this to the discussion. There is no question at all that this should have been flagged. The fact that it wasn't flagged tells me ONE thing and ONE thing only. The covering officials didn't see it. I know many here will want to launch their black helicopters and conspiracy theories, but that's just nonsense. The fact is, that with the increasing amount of attention to player safety, there isn't any way at all that this doesn't get flagged provided an official saw the entire play. Seeing half of it isn't enough. They must see the entire play.

[AcUmen 242]

Nicely done, but I have a few corrections or clarifications. My comments in orange.

Also let me add this to the discussion. There is no question at all that this should have been flagged. The fact that it wasn't flagged tells me ONE thing and ONE thing only. The covering officials didn't see it. I know many here will want to launch their black helicopters and conspiracy theories, but that's just nonsense. The fact is, that with the increasing amount of attention to player safety, there isn't any way at all that this doesn't get flagged provided an official saw the entire play. Seeing half of it isn't enough. They must see the entire play.

I agree that A does not apply, but F does.

I do disagree with you, though, on the ejection rule. Are you reading from the most updated rulebook? The newest edition says that flagrant personal fouls MUST result in ejection. To quote again:

"Use of the helmet as a weapon and intentional (targeted) contact to the head or neck area are serious safety concerns. Flagrant offenders must be disqualified from the game. "

This may not have been true in previous years, but the latest "update" to the rulebook puts a lot of emphasis on putting an end to head shots and says quite clearly that "flagrant" head shot fouls MUST result in ejection (which by rule will result in suspension for part of the next game). Since all head-shot fouls are supposed to be called (regardless of intent) it makes me wonder how they decide if it was flagrant?

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

Well that's par for the course between the SEC office and UAT.

[WarEagle10 77]

I am actually stunned the SEC will do nothing about this. This is so unlike them.

[WarTiger 3,987]

Nicely done, but I have a few corrections or clarifications. My comments in orange.

Also let me add this to the discussion. There is no question at all that this should have been flagged. The fact that it wasn't flagged tells me ONE thing and ONE thing only. The covering officials didn't see it. I know many here will want to launch their black helicopters and conspiracy theories, but that's just nonsense. The fact is, that with the increasing amount of attention to player safety, there isn't any way at all that this doesn't get flagged provided an official saw the entire play. Seeing half of it isn't enough. They must see the entire play.

I agree that A does not apply, but F does.

I do disagree with you, though, on the ejection rule. Are you reading from the most updated rulebook? The newest edition says that flagrant personal fouls MUST result in ejection. To quote again:

"Use of the helmet as a weapon and intentional (targeted) contact to the head or neck area are serious safety concerns. Flagrant offenders must be disqualified from the game. "

This may not have been true in previous years, but the latest "update" to the rulebook puts a lot of emphasis on putting an end to head shots and says quite clearly that "flagrant" head shot fouls MUST result in ejection (which by rule will result in suspension for part of the next game). Since all head-shot fouls are supposed to be called (regardless of intent) it makes me wonder how they decide if it was flagrant?

I didnt disagree with the ejection part of your statement. Read my rule reference again. I disagree (and so does the rule book) with the suspension part of your statement. The rule book clearly states the ejected player MAY be subject to additional penalties. Nowhere does it say suspension is part of the punishment.

Did you miss my first comment about the rule book edition? I assure you I have the most current rule book. I also have 25 years of experience officiating football.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,419]

It's always amusing when someone challenges WT in his knowledge of the rules.

[AcUmen 242]

Nicely done, but I have a few corrections or clarifications. My comments in orange.

Also let me add this to the discussion. There is no question at all that this should have been flagged. The fact that it wasn't flagged tells me ONE thing and ONE thing only. The covering officials didn't see it. I know many here will want to launch their black helicopters and conspiracy theories, but that's just nonsense. The fact is, that with the increasing amount of attention to player safety, there isn't any way at all that this doesn't get flagged provided an official saw the entire play. Seeing half of it isn't enough. They must see the entire play.

I agree that A does not apply, but F does.

I do disagree with you, though, on the ejection rule. Are you reading from the most updated rulebook? The newest edition says that flagrant personal fouls MUST result in ejection. To quote again:

"Use of the helmet as a weapon and intentional (targeted) contact to the head or neck area are serious safety concerns. Flagrant offenders must be disqualified from the game. "

This may not have been true in previous years, but the latest "update" to the rulebook puts a lot of emphasis on putting an end to head shots and says quite clearly that "flagrant" head shot fouls MUST result in ejection (which by rule will result in suspension for part of the next game). Since all head-shot fouls are supposed to be called (regardless of intent) it makes me wonder how they decide if it was flagrant?

I didnt disagree with the ejection part of your statement. Read my rule reference again. I disagree (and so does the rule book) with the suspension part of your statement. The rule book clearly states the ejected player MAY be subject to additional penalties. Nowhere does it say suspension is part of the punishment.

Did you miss my first comment about the rule book edition? I assure you I have the most current rule book. I also have 25 years of experience officiating football.

Doesn't an ejection automatically result in a half-game suspension? Is that just an SEC thing and not covered by the NCAA?

Also, to make sure I understand, do all fouls called for this result in "flagrant fouls" or is the "flagrant" part up to the official?

[im4aual 492]

I hate bama

[around4ever 4,139]

Let's put this in perspectve. Go back to the 2010 season, if Nick Fairley makes that exact hit on the uga or uat QB does he get flagged and/or ejection and/or suspended?

[GaTigerFan 0]

No doubt... Fairley would've been flagged, ejected and suspended.

[E'Town4Bama 143]

No doubt... Fairley would've been flagged, ejected and suspended.

Say what you want but Fairley gave cheap shots all year. Dial is not known for cheap shots. Is anyone talking about suspending the UGA player for hitting AJ in the head or what about the other UGA player who tried to poke DM eye out? Lets talk about that. Has every player in college football this year been suspended because of a helmet to helmet? No and that is because helmet to helmet occurs on 70-80% of all plays in some way or another. Murray started moving towards the play after he threw the int. He became a defender. If he can tackle, he can get blocked. Murray was more clueless than defenseless.

[WarTiger 3,987]

No doubt... Fairley would've been flagged, ejected and suspended.

Say what you want but Fairley gave cheap shots all year. Dial is not known for cheap shots. Is anyone talking about suspending the UGA player for hitting AJ in the head or what about the other UGA player who tried to poke DM eye out? Lets talk about that. Has every player in college football this year been suspended because of a helmet to helmet? No and that is because helmet to helmet occurs on 70-80% of all plays in some way or another. Murray started moving towards the play after he threw the int. He became a defender. If he can tackle, he can get blocked.

That is completely FALSE. NOTHING in the rule book supports that nonsense. We've already outlined why that hit was illegal. Nothing you say to justify to yourself or defend it to us will change what the facts are. The rule book defines this clearly. It was illegal. period.

Here's one fan (of many) that we can file under the "he's on the field, its legal to hit him" category. You need to learn the game more.

Murray was more clueless than defenseless.

Given your ridiculous statement and shallow justification of the incident, I'd say you are the one that is clueless. Again. You need to learn the game more. Good luck with that.

[WarTiger 3,987]

Nicely done, but I have a few corrections or clarifications. My comments in orange.

Also let me add this to the discussion. There is no question at all that this should have been flagged. The fact that it wasn't flagged tells me ONE thing and ONE thing only. The covering officials didn't see it. I know many here will want to launch their black helicopters and conspiracy theories, but that's just nonsense. The fact is, that with the increasing amount of attention to player safety, there isn't any way at all that this doesn't get flagged provided an official saw the entire play. Seeing half of it isn't enough. They must see the entire play.

I agree that A does not apply, but F does.

I do disagree with you, though, on the ejection rule. Are you reading from the most updated rulebook? The newest edition says that flagrant personal fouls MUST result in ejection. To quote again:

"Use of the helmet as a weapon and intentional (targeted) contact to the head or neck area are serious safety concerns. Flagrant offenders must be disqualified from the game. "

I took some time this morning to look into this a bit more. The entire quote you listed above is nowhere to be found. I'd like to know where you are reading this. The newest edition of the book is a brief bulletin outlining the 2012 changes. It's 6 pages long and says absolutely nothing about helmet contact anywhere.

This may not have been true in previous years, but the latest "update" to the rulebook puts a lot of emphasis on putting an end to head shots and says quite clearly that "flagrant" head shot fouls MUST result in ejection (which by rule will result in suspension for part of the next game).

You are repeating the same thing from the first paragraph and its simply not true. I have the latest update and there is no mention at all of helmet hits. NOTHING.

Since all head-shot fouls are supposed to be called (regardless of intent) it makes me wonder how they decide if it was flagrant?

Also digging a little bit more I found this in the rule book. This completely throws out your statement that leading with the helmet/targeting carries an automatic ejection. IT DOES NOT.... Wish I had seen this last night when I was responding to you. It appears to me you are confusing a couple of situations to arrive at the automatic ejection for this. Read the article below:

Initiating Contact/Targeting an Opponent

ARTICLE 2. When there is a foul called for initiating contact/targeting

an opponent (Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4) that does not result in a player dis–

qualification, there shall automatically be a video review by the conference for

possible additional sanctions before the next scheduled game.

Clearly targeting itself does NOT warrant an automatic ejection. Furthermore, I don't remember one incident all season where a player was flagged for targeting and ejected. There were several player suspensions once the SEC reviewed the play, but none of those players were actually ejected from the game for it.

[E'Town4Bama 143]

No doubt... Fairley would've been flagged, ejected and suspended.

Say what you want but Fairley gave cheap shots all year. Dial is not known for cheap shots. Is anyone talking about suspending the UGA player for hitting AJ in the head or what about the other UGA player who tried to poke DM eye out? Lets talk about that. Has every player in college football this year been suspended because of a helmet to helmet? No and that is because helmet to helmet occurs on 70-80% of all plays in some way or another. Murray started moving towards the play after he threw the int. He became a defender. If he can tackle, he can get blocked.

That is completely FALSE. NOTHING in the rule book supports that nonsense. We've already outlined why that hit was illegal. Nothing you say to justify to yourself or defend it to us will change what the facts are. The rule book defines this clearly. It was illegal. period.

Here's one fan (of many) that we can file under the "he's on the field, its legal to hit him" category. You need to learn the game more.

Murray was more clueless than defenseless.

Given your ridiculous statement and shallow justification of the incident, I'd say you are the one that is clueless. Again. You need to learn the game more. Good luck with that.

WT, the funny thing about all of this is the fact that AM's stupidity caused all of this. First it was his int. Secondly, it was his failure to be aware of what opposing players were around him after he threw the pick. If he would have been aware of Dial, we wouldn't be talking about this because that hit wouldn't have happened. If I am not mistaken, Murray hasn't said too much about it. I don't know this to be fact but Murray said to some reporter that Dial led with his shoulder. Generally speaking, when you lead with your shoulder, your head is right there with it. The helmet to helmet subject has a huge gray area and it needs to be addressed in the off-season.

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

Mike Sleeze has no guts. That kid should not be allowed to play. Typical bammer trying to justify getting away with something that any other team would have to pay for. If bammer wins....it will be another bought and sold one.

Just another reason to pull for ND.