SEC doesn't suspend Quinton Dial for BCS Championship Game

[Weegle777 78]

If Murray didn't want to be hit, he shouldn't have moved in the direction of the play and should have paid attention to his surroundings. I guess that's my "Crimson glasses" talking tho :rolleyes:/>

May be. Again, they aren't my rules. I saw a receiver get hit across the middle in the Patriots vs. Niners game that was an embarrassing personal foul call by the refs. What are the DBs supposed to do? Do they stand back and let the guy score? SEC still got it wrong because they will not punish bama. But what do you do?

I just think it's getting overblown because it involved a QB. How many times have we gone "OOOOOOOOOOOOOH" when any other position player gets blind-sided on a block while moving in the direction of the person with the ball? Those are almost never called penalties and generally nobody cares. Don't get me wrong, the shot on Murray was brutal, but to be suspended for it? I dunno... they'd be suspending players every week.

The rule needs to be changed where a personal foul on helmet contact should be reviewable. The hit on McCarron earlier in the game wasn't even close to helmet to helmet contact and just because AJ threw his hands up and whined to the official, he threw the late flag.

You're right, too many times the refs are influenced by the players. Especially on pass interference calls. Everyone is walking back to the line of scrimmage and all of a sudden the flag gets thrown because the WR is flailing his arms.

Keep in mind, I am old school. I hate the direction football is going.

[kickerman97 3]

If Murray didn't want to be hit, he shouldn't have moved in the direction of the play and should have paid attention to his surroundings. I guess that's my "Crimson glasses" talking tho :rolleyes:/>

May be. Again, they aren't my rules. I saw a receiver get hit across the middle in the Patriots vs. Niners game that was an embarrassing personal foul call by the refs. What are the DBs supposed to do? Do they stand back and let the guy score? SEC still got it wrong because they will not punish bama. But what do you do?

I just think it's getting overblown because it involved a QB. How many times have we gone "OOOOOOOOOOOOOH" when any other position player gets blind-sided on a block while moving in the direction of the person with the ball? Those are almost never called penalties and generally nobody cares. Don't get me wrong, the shot on Murray was brutal, but to be suspended for it? I dunno... they'd be suspending players every week.

The rule needs to be changed where a personal foul on helmet contact should be reviewable. The hit on McCarron earlier in the game wasn't even close to helmet to helmet contact and just because AJ threw his hands up and whined to the official, he threw the late flag.

You're right, too many times the refs are influenced by the players. Especially on pass interference calls. Everyone is walking back to the line of scrimmage and all of a sudden the flag gets thrown because the WR is flailing his arms.

Keep in mind, I am old school. I hate the direction football is going.

Good grief, I agree with you twice. What is happening.

In all seriousness, the degree to which personal fouls are called is completely absurd. The entire culture of football has changed and not for the better. Can you imagine how much differently you have to play defense now than opposed to 20 years ago? Or even 10 years ago? These guys on defense are criticized either way they go sometimes....they have to play so "careful" now to be within the rules. It's pathetic IMO.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

If Murray didn't want to be hit, he shouldn't have moved in the direction of the play and should have paid attention to his surroundings. I guess that's my "Crimson glasses" talking tho

I don't have a problem with the rule. I have a problem with the SEC being selective about a hit being "violent" enough to warrant a suspension. If you watched the Dial hit, it was every bit as vicious as the Ole Miss or South Carolina player's hits. Basically the SEC is nitpicking over how bad a hit is to justify a suspension.

They need to be consistent. Why did they suspend the Ole Miss or South Carolina player? Their lame excuse is that Murray was a defender. That's not exactly a good excuse. I think Dial's hit was just as bad as the Ole Miss or South Carolina hit because Dial set Murray up and tried to get an angle on him so he could put a big hit on him. Steve Shaw admitted that the hit was illegal and should have been flagged.

Either change the rule or be consistent in suspending players. This crap by the SEC makes me mad.

[ausburn 159]

If Murray didn't want to be hit, he shouldn't have moved in the direction of the play and should have paid attention to his surroundings. I guess that's my "Crimson glasses" talking tho

I don't have a problem with the rule. I have a problem with the SEC being selective about a hit being "violent" enough to warrant a suspension. If you watched the Dial hit, it was every bit as vicious as the Ole Miss or South Carolina player's hits. Basically the SEC is nitpicking over how bad a hit is to justify a suspension.

They need to be consistent. Why did they suspend the Ole Miss or South Carolina player? Their lame excuse is that Murray was a defender. That's not exactly a good excuse. I think Dial's hit was just as bad as the Ole Miss or South Carolina hit because Dial set Murray up and tried to get an angle on him so he could put a big hit on him. Steve Shaw admitted that the hit was illegal and should have been flagged.

Either change the rule or be consistent in suspending players. This crap by the SEC makes me mad.

It was for sure unnecessary roughing. The story spinning is through the Crimson glasses. If you change the guys uniforms you would hear a totally different version of what happened. Now if it had been Nick Fairley he would be dirtiest player in all of college football. It was a cheap shot on a player. Now you can say Dial is a dirty player and he was coached that way.....sound familiar?

[WhiteTiger 2]

If Murray didn't want to be hit, he shouldn't have moved in the direction of the play and should have paid attention to his surroundings. I guess that's my "Crimson glasses" talking tho

I don't have a problem with the rule. I have a problem with the SEC being selective about a hit being "violent" enough to warrant a suspension. If you watched the Dial hit, it was every bit as vicious as the Ole Miss or South Carolina player's hits. Basically the SEC is nitpicking over how bad a hit is to justify a suspension.

They need to be consistent. Why did they suspend the Ole Miss or South Carolina player? Their lame excuse is that Murray was a defender. That's not exactly a good excuse. I think Dial's hit was just as bad as the Ole Miss or South Carolina hit because Dial set Murray up and tried to get an angle on him so he could put a big hit on him. Steve Shaw admitted that the hit was illegal and should have been flagged.

Either change the rule or be consistent in suspending players. This crap by the SEC makes me mad.

It was for sure unnecessary roughing. The story spinning is through the Crimson glasses. If you change the guys uniforms you would hear a totally different version of what happened. Now if it had been Nick Fairley he would be dirtiest player in all of college football. It was a cheap shot on a player. Now you can say Dial is a dirty player and he was coached that way.....sound familiar?

I guess that means that if we change the uniform to O&B and our DE then it would be justified. I think the hit was uncalled for and that it should have been a PF. I also think that it does not reach the suspension level. Just MHO.

[keesler 5,934]

I agree - shoulda been called for PF - but in no way did it warrant a suspension.

Football is becoming pansified enough, we can't start suspending defensive players for what amounts to nothing more than a personal foul. The refs should throw a flag (IF they witness the foul), and that should be the extent of punishment, IMO.

[ausburn 159]

If Murray didn't want to be hit, he shouldn't have moved in the direction of the play and should have paid attention to his surroundings. I guess that's my "Crimson glasses" talking tho

I don't have a problem with the rule. I have a problem with the SEC being selective about a hit being "violent" enough to warrant a suspension. If you watched the Dial hit, it was every bit as vicious as the Ole Miss or South Carolina player's hits. Basically the SEC is nitpicking over how bad a hit is to justify a suspension.

They need to be consistent. Why did they suspend the Ole Miss or South Carolina player? Their lame excuse is that Murray was a defender. That's not exactly a good excuse. I think Dial's hit was just as bad as the Ole Miss or South Carolina hit because Dial set Murray up and tried to get an angle on him so he could put a big hit on him. Steve Shaw admitted that the hit was illegal and should have been flagged.

Either change the rule or be consistent in suspending players. This crap by the SEC makes me mad.

It was for sure unnecessary roughing. The story spinning is through the Crimson glasses. If you change the guys uniforms you would hear a totally different version of what happened. Now if it had been Nick Fairley he would be dirtiest player in all of college football. It was a cheap shot on a player. Now you can say Dial is a dirty player and he was coached that way.....sound familiar?

I guess that means that if we change the uniform to O&B and our DE then it would be justified. I think the hit was uncalled for and that it should have been a PF. I also think that it does not reach the suspension level. Just MHO.

The changing of the uniform colors was in context of that game (Ga/AL). Who ever made that hit it should been called. The Fairly reference is that Ga in 2010 made a big deal of Fairly's efforts in the Au Ga game. Fairly was labeled as a dirty player and got a flag thrown against him in the Al game that should of not been called. That is the past. Dial took a cheap shot and got away with it.....no penalty during the game and no post game sanction.

[milehighfan 1,240]

If I read the article correctly, didn't it say the turds would handle it internally? Doesn't that give all of you the warm fuzzies?

[smackydoodle 200]

If Murray didn't want to be hit, he shouldn't have moved in the direction of the play and should have paid attention to his surroundings. I guess that's my "Crimson glasses" talking tho

I don't have a problem with the rule. I have a problem with the SEC being selective about a hit being "violent" enough to warrant a suspension. If you watched the Dial hit, it was every bit as vicious as the Ole Miss or South Carolina player's hits. Basically the SEC is nitpicking over how bad a hit is to justify a suspension.

They need to be consistent. Why did they suspend the Ole Miss or South Carolina player? Their lame excuse is that Murray was a defender. That's not exactly a good excuse. I think Dial's hit was just as bad as the Ole Miss or South Carolina hit because Dial set Murray up and tried to get an angle on him so he could put a big hit on him. Steve Shaw admitted that the hit was illegal and should have been flagged.

Either change the rule or be consistent in suspending players. This crap by the SEC makes me mad.

It was for sure unnecessary roughing. The story spinning is through the Crimson glasses. If you change the guys uniforms you would hear a totally different version of what happened. Now if it had been Nick Fairley he would be dirtiest player in all of college football. It was a cheap shot on a player. Now you can say Dial is a dirty player and he was coached that way.....sound familiar?

I guess that means that if we change the uniform to O&B and our DE then it would be justified. I think the hit was uncalled for and that it should have been a PF. I also think that it does not reach the suspension level. Just MHO.

The changing of the uniform colors was in context of that game (Ga/AL). Who ever made that hit it should been called. The Fairly reference is that Ga in 2010 made a big deal of Fairly's efforts in the Au Ga game. Fairly was labeled as a dirty player and got a flag thrown against him in the Al game that should of not been called. That is the past. Dial took a cheap shot and got away with it.....no penalty during the game and no post game sanction.

If I remember correctly, Fairly buried his helmet into Murray's back about 5 seconds after Murray threw the ball. Doesn't really have to do with this situation where Murray was on the defending side of the ball at the time was (timidly) running in the direction of the play.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Didn't read all 7 pages. Just wondering if you guys are equally as upset about the UGA player who launched his helmet into AJ's face not getting suspended.

I'm guessing you're not.

[keesler 5,934]

Didn't read all 7 pages. Just wondering if you guys are equally as upset about the UGA player who launched his helmet into AJ's face not getting suspended.

I'm guessing you're not.

Neither warranted a suspension, IMO. Both warranted a PF flag though.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Didn't read all 7 pages. Just wondering if you guys are equally as upset about the UGA player who launched his helmet into AJ's face not getting suspended.

I'm guessing you're not.

Neither warranted a suspension, IMO. Both warranted a PF flag though.

Agreed.

Dial should have gotten flagged. I think Murry was fair game, and he wasn't far away from the tackle at all. The fact that he was so lax about the entire play baffles me. You HAVE to know you're a target of a hard hit on an INT. That's football 101.

And I'm fine with hard hits. But helmet to helmet is in the rules. You can't do it. Should have been a flag. Fanning should have been suspended for his play against Mizzou. He could have really hurt that kid and it was completely unwarranted. However, to use his not being suspended as some case for SEC protecting Bama is a joke. The guy is like 4th string.

[penguin149 391]

This is the result of the SEC office getting involved in earlier suspensions at USCe and Ole Miss. The no-call on the play and the resulting need for the SEC office to make a statement "that there's nothing to see here, so move along" adds to the national perception that SEC football is biased towards a couple of teams and a win-at-all-costs attitude.

[keesler 5,934]

This is the result of the SEC office getting involved in earlier suspensions at USCe and Ole Miss. The no-call on the play and the resulting need for the SEC office to make a statement "that there's nothing to see here, so move along" adds to the national perception that SEC football is biased towards a couple of teams and a win-at-all-costs attitude.

The SEC is the King of college football - the SEC office would be foolish not to protect their brand. They gotta do whatever it takes to keep pumping $$$$ into the SEC coffers.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

Didn't read all 7 pages. Just wondering if you guys are equally as upset about the UGA player who launched his helmet into AJ's face not getting suspended.

I'm guessing you're not.

I'd be ok with it if they suspended the UGA player but only if they also suspended Dial. But the SEC isn't going to be consistent. That's my gripe. It's not the rule it's how the SEC is picking and choosing which hits they think warrant a suspension.

I just think it's ticky tack how the SEC suspended the Ole Miss and South Carolina players but didn't do anything when other players had similar hits, not just the Alabama player. It shows how disingenuous they are about player safety.

I personally don't think the SEC should have suspended the Ole Miss or South Carolina player but they had already set a precedent by doing it. They need to be consistent.