|
Replies: 10
| visibility 2,731
|
Walk-On [101]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18
Joined: 11/18/07
|
#42 UNC flagrant hit on #24 MFields - is this legal?
Dec 7, 2015, 12:12 AM
|
|
I realize there's alot of discussion across the nation about the offsides call. The official had the best view to determine if the arm of one of the UNC players crossed the line at point of kick. I haven't been able to find video of the ref's direct view, so its just a tough call that fortunately went our way. But for everyone to keep reporting this as "robbery" against UNC, this is way over the top.
What is most disturbing is the sheer dumbfounded overlook of a play that defines highly flagrant contact that everyone should want to remove from the sport of football. The deliberate, paralyzing hit that #42 put on Mark Fields #24 is gruesome to re-watch. He was completely defenseless. It's amazing that he did not suffer concussion or some other serious injury. How on earth was this not noticed by anyone during the game?
I'm no football expert, but this seems very wrong to me. What would this type of contact be flagged for... targeting, flagrant foul, unsportsmanlike, personal, etc? Whatever it is, it should be addressed more so than the "robbery" call. Your thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKcCBZnXt0
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 885
Joined: 10/17/01
|
Interesting video.
Dec 7, 2015, 12:19 AM
|
|
We won, so I'm happy to let bygones be bygones, but if the shoe were on the other foot, this video would have me asking the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [547]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 702
Joined: 12/6/11
|
Re: #42 UNC flagrant hit on #24 MFields - is this legal?
Dec 7, 2015, 12:23 AM
|
|
Led with the crown . Definitely was . I'm just happy that Mark is ok . It could have left him with a badddddd concussion . Either way, I'm happy !!!!! We're going to the playoffs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [990]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1242
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: #42 UNC flagrant hit on #24 MFields - is this legal?
Dec 7, 2015, 12:24 AM
|
|
I'm not 100% certain, but I'm guessing that was Zac Brooks on the receiving end of that hit. He cut his hair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8244]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7565
Joined: 1/1/11
|
Refs missed a "D" good ballgame***
Dec 7, 2015, 4:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3730]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4857
Joined: 11/4/03
|
Thanks for posting this...I had been reading of this...
Dec 7, 2015, 6:03 AM
|
|
...missed targeting call, but had missed it watching the game.
This was indeed disgusting, flagrant targeting. I do recall vividly the side hit to DW4's helmet that left him kneeling on the turf after the hit. Both were FAR worse than Green's hit on Switzer, where Switzer was crouched in a forward running back position and certainly not defenceless.
I'm still somewhat in shock that the referee even threw that flag on the offsides, really. What was the story with this referee? Has he turned rogue? "Has he gone into business for himself? Was he turned around? Does someone operate him?...Broke? Vulnerable? Could he be a soldier of fortune?" "Three Days of the Condor"
We may never know the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1438]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 845
Joined: 1/18/11
|
Maybe, just maybe
Dec 7, 2015, 7:08 AM
|
|
After watching an entire game where everyone on his staff ignored holding calls, he decided to call the game tight and exactly how he saw it. Maybe he saw someone 2 inches offsides before the kick and said, "I'm calling it because it's technically offsides and I'm tired of these other refs ignoring blatant penalties." Maybe.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1359]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1536
Joined: 8/25/13
|
It was a blatant foul. Ref stopped watching after
Dec 7, 2015, 7:40 AM
|
|
throwing the flag. UNC got lucky. Should have been 15 yards instead of 5, plus ejection and missing first half of bowl game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5454]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5196
Joined: 12/3/07
|
I believe that's Zac Brooks
Dec 7, 2015, 7:51 AM
|
|
Either way, it's definitely a penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67829]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115464
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I believe that's Zac Brooks- I would think so but who
Dec 7, 2015, 7:58 AM
|
|
knows
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1438]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 845
Joined: 1/18/11
|
It's Brooks
Dec 7, 2015, 8:03 AM
|
|
Just watched that play on Tigerray's YouTube upload.
How can all these people not understand camera angles? I don't have the time, but someone should set up a simple experiment with pictures for people. If you take a picture along a plane showing an object barely hanging over a line, and then shift the camera perpendicularly away from the original plane, redirect the camera to point at the object, it now looks like the entire object is behind the line! Magic!
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 10
| visibility 2,731
|
|
|
50
