Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42413
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. I think it's relatively simple. Sark's had a lot of success here, and with the high-ranked classes, two CFP appearances/final four, Arch in the wings, an able assist from some less than ideal coaches, and maybe some personal distraction, Sark thought he had it knocked. The machine was rolling. Obviously, he did not. And I think he was every bit as shocked as all of us who swallowed all the 995 bs. That says something not great about Sark, I guess, a bit of arrogance, some inexperience playing and winning at the highest levels in the current environment, etc. It's really all in how he recovers from this.
  2. It probably literally fit either definition, maybe not crown of helmet. The rules are intended to objectively define an element of intent to make "forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." But intent doesn't strictly come into it. Still, I think some sort of discretion should exist to rule that the hit didn't exhibit that type of forcible contact and thus did not constitute targeting.
  3. Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI) Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: • Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area. • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground. • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield. • A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. • A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return. • A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not ha
  4. Nah, it's pretty clear they are very poorly schemed/taught and integrated with the rest of the D. They don't know what they're doing, so they're playing tentative, which partly explains the tackling.
  5. Well, we always seem to overstate the impact of a not-great season on recruiting. But I think the shitass OL and offensive play and now defensive play raises the questions more thoroughly than CFP or not.
  6. On the one hand, if we made the CFP, we keep playing a couple of games, maybe spoil some shit. On the other, though, I'd really prefer to be in the CFP as a contender. If we're not, I don't think I care.
  7. Plus the versatility of fuck.
  8. It's pretty formalistic. But, hey, it's law, and criminal law at that. The evidence really seems to be that they voted true on two of the three counts. The two that are the subject of the current indictment. But they never saw or actually voted on the two-count indictment, which was the one returned to the court to commence the case. I'd really like to see more of the vindictive prosecution evidence come to light before anything gets dismissed.
  9. This really amused me. Nice, fuck pig. Nice fuck, pig. Nice fuckpig.
  10. I know, there's a question there. I've seen it discussed a few times, I don't think it's clear.
  11. He is a big fucker, unlike Marcel Reed, for example.
  12. Cade Phillips looking like a bright spot.
  13. Not this team this year, no thanks.
  14. Half A Hundred. Cunts.
  15. You're right in a sense. But, he is proving to be a very, very good college QB, the last few games. There really aren't many that have looked better.
  16. Yeah, the deep busted coverages are letting WR field these like an outfielder. Not repeatable for the most part against better D.
  17. Maybe it wasn't Jaggy with the barbwire. Skinny, apparently white guy number __3.
  18. I tend to agree. But, the rules still encompass some pretty legit football hits that don't account for height differential, like that one.
  19. I hear ya. I think he did earlier, with maybe not ideal passes, leading to dropsy yips.
  20. I think he's just kind of mindfucked. But getting over it. I think if earlier OL play had let Arch Arch better, the WR connection and performance would have been better. Like it's getting now.
  21. Aaaaarrrrrrccccchhhhhh
  22. Tre's all like suck my dick, Surly.
  23. Oh lawd, Jaggy has a barbwire tat.
×
×
  • Create New...