Jan 2, 2025
1:14:56pm
1:14:56pm
Nope. The purpose isn’t to avoid “worry” by preventing “worrisome” acts. The purpose is 100% to decrease injury and to
that end they have defined an act that is illegal.
So yes, you judge the act.
Did he make contact with head or neck of a defenseless receiver?
Obviously.
So what is the remaining question being debated on this thread?
“Was it *forcible* contact”?
People claim that is subjective, which it may be.
But, whether the contact is sufficient to cause the exact injury the rule was created to avoid is probably the easiest way to answer that question and the closest it can possibly get to making it objective.
That’s why it’s pertinent.
So yes, you judge the act.
Did he make contact with head or neck of a defenseless receiver?
Obviously.
So what is the remaining question being debated on this thread?
“Was it *forcible* contact”?
People claim that is subjective, which it may be.
But, whether the contact is sufficient to cause the exact injury the rule was created to avoid is probably the easiest way to answer that question and the closest it can possibly get to making it objective.
That’s why it’s pertinent.
- Bio page
- mvtoro
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Last login
- Jan 6, 2025
- Total posts
- 13,841 (856 FO)
Messages
Time
Jan 2, 12:30am
In my opinion, the rule is there to protect a player from getting injured. I think the fact that the guy’s laying there
Jan 2, 12:42am
Every time a “defenseless” player gets injured by being hit in the head, yes. Thats the entire purpose of the rule.
Jan 2, 9:06am
Nope, still a penalty even if there’s no injury. Penalty is based on a specific action that is likely to result in
Jan 2, 10:02am
Jan 2, 10:07am
Yup. Thats why I used the language of the rule in my post. Some folks are trying to parse what’s “forcible” contact and
Jan 2, 10:21am
No, a defenseless player being injured by the contact to his head shows that it was plenty “forcible” to fulfill the
Jan 2, 10:40am
Jan 2, 10:44am
Prevention of those exact injuries are 100% the purpose of the rule. Injuries *are* the purpose and justification for
Jan 2, 11:04am
Jan 2, 11:43am
Nope. The purpose isn’t to avoid “worry” by preventing “worrisome” acts. The purpose is 100% to decrease injury and to
Jan 2, 1:14pm
Jan 2, 1:37pm
No I’m not. That’s your strawman of what I’m proposing. You throw the flag if there is “forcible contact” to the head
Jan 2, 1:54pm
Jan 2, 3:08pm
Jan 2, 4:38pm
Indicator is “forcible contact” to head or neck area of a defenseless receiver. Which part of that do you think is in
Jan 2, 5:38pm
Jan 2, 6:03pm
Jan 2, 6:06pm
Jan 2, 9:35am
Jan 2, 9:37am
Jan 2, 9:38am
Jan 2, 6:27am
Jan 2, 7:58am
Jan 2, 10:09am
Indicators like his head snapping back after helmet to helmet contactsand him laying on the ground with a concussion
Jan 2, 9:56am
Jan 3, 9:16am
Jan 3, 9:15am
Jan 2, 1:11am
Jan 2, 1:52am
Jan 2, 6:24am
Jan 3, 9:17am
Jan 2, 1:57am
Jan 2, 2:23am
Jan 2, 3:10am
Jan 2, 3:14am
Jan 2, 6:13am
I think if they had an angle clearly showing forcible contact to the head they would have made the call
Jan 2, 7:18am
I don't think that's clear - you can't see through his shoulder to see where his face mask hits first
Jan 2, 7:37am
Jan 2, 7:51am
Jan 2, 9:30am
Jan 2, 9:34am
Jan 2, 9:39am
Jan 2, 10:07am
Jan 2, 8:16am
Jan 2, 8:29am
Jan 2, 9:25am
Jan 2, 7:20pm
Jan 3, 9:13am