Nick Ruffin

[Browning4AU 405]

It was a dumb hit. I was looking for the flag before they broke contact with each other. After watching the replays, I didn't expect an overturning, although it was close to being a good hit.

Exactly...I immediately stated, "He's gone" as it happened realtime. I kinda hoped they'd change their mind, but I thought the odds were against it.

I don't know if it's been asked in here or not, but will he be available for the 1st half agains MSU???

;D ;D

[tiger88 934]

I think he has to sit out every third play.

[eibua12 81]

I think he has to sit out every third play.

So he can come in on Offense after 3 plays? So confused.

[tiger88 934]

I think he has to sit out every third play.

So he can come in on Offense after 3 plays? So confused.

That's a definite maybe.

[eibua12 81]

I think he has to sit out every third play.

So he can come in on Offense after 3 plays? So confused.

That's a definite maybe.

So he will be fashionably late, got it

[AU-Jess 0]

I think he has to sit out every third play.

So he can come in on Offense after 3 plays? So confused.

That's a definite maybe.

So he will be fashionably late, got it

60 percent of the time, he'll play every time.

[au75 75]

bump

[eibua12 81]

I think he has to sit out every third play.

So he can come in on Offense after 3 plays? So confused.

That's a definite maybe.

So he will be fashionably late, got it

60 percent of the time, he'll play every time.

So if I read this right he won't play every time 40% of the time or is it every time he is playing it is 60% of the time, but I am not sure that the 60% of every time isn't really 100% of time only if he is playing. Put I know for a fact that while playing on D he is in fact 100% of the time on D but on O when he plays on O he is playing 0% on D

[Tampa Tiger 30]

I think he has to sit out every third play.

So he can come in on Offense after 3 plays? So confused.

That's a definite maybe.

So he will be fashionably late, got it

60 percent of the time, he'll play every time.

Hahah, love the Anchoman reference!!!! Good form!

[AUEngineer2016 407]

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

[cooltigger21 0]

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

[AUEngineer2016 407]

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

[cooltigger21 0]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

[homersapien 11,377]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

[alexava 6,973]

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

explain the proper technique for that particular play.

[tiger88 934]

Here's a thought, why not just focus on tackling the guy and not worry about knocking him into next month.

[eibua12 81]

Here's a thought, why not just focus on tackling the guy and not worry about knocking him into next month.

Where is the fun in that! IMHO if he had executed a form tackle, exploding through the receiver and wrapping up that young man would/may have some broken ribs and a concussion from his head snapping and smacking into the ground. AIMHO a form tackle at full speed can and will knock a guy into the next month more than blowing him up.

[cooltigger21 0]

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

explain the proper technique for that particular play.

Maybe like that?

[alexava 6,973]

That is not much different than what happened with nick. The receiver was decending. The carrier in your pic is straight up.

[cooltigger21 0]

That is not much different than what happened with nick. The receiver was decending. The carrier in your pic is straight up.

Nick never even attempted to tackle. He went in with the shoulder to try to blow up the receiver. He was trying to make a big play but not necessarily the smart football play. I don't necessarily think it was a penalty but in this day and age you can bet it will be called. Be aggressive but be smart. He's only a freshman and probably never was taught the proper technique. He will learn.

[LKEEL75 2,566]

That is not much different than what happened with nick. The receiver was decending. The carrier in your pic is straight up.

The difference is in this pic you can see the kid's arms are wrapping around the offensive player vs Ruffin crossed his arms and lowered his shoulder just to hit him. I hate this about most all Defensive backs (pro or college) in today's football. They are afraid to wrap up and drive through the Offensive player. Instead they want to get the big hit and stand over them to get on SportsCenter. Quit worrying about that and wrap up.

[AUsince72 11,084]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

[McLoofus 35,182]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

[AUsince72 11,084]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

Well, I guess I stand corrected that not everybody would know but even at 10 years old the mere fact that I had to wear a helmet told me something...

EDIT: ..and I'm actually not kidding about the form I mention. From this day moving forward, perhaps they really should distribute this to each and every potential football player. Then, nobody can say they never knew why they wore helmets and pads.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

Well, I guess I stand corrected that not everybody would know but even at 10 years old the mere fact that I had to wear a helmet told me something...

EDIT: ..and I'm actually not kidding about the form I mention. From this day moving forward, perhaps they really should distribute this to each and every potential football player. Then, nobody can say they never knew why they wore helmets and pads.

Yes. I knew why I wore a helmet. It was to protect my head. What I didn't realize is that helmets don't actually do a lot to protect your brain.

So you continued playing football knowing that you might lose significant brain function, suffer depression or have fits of violent rage- among other things- as early as your 40s because of it?