Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

"Illegal crackback block on a defenseless player, with targeting."

13

Comments

  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Let me clarify:
    It would have been a blindside block had it met the criteria for a blindside block. It was nothing resembling a crack back block.

    Blindside blocks require the blocker to be moving toward his own goal line (against the grain of the play if you will). That clearly wasn't happening with the Perkins play.

    For sarkastic: One of the criteria for a blindside block is that the blocker comes at the opponent from the side or from behind (BRB, JO). It should never be called a blindside block in this scenario because the block is coming from the front of the blockee.



    Clear as mud?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 115,556 Founders Club
    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    Let me clarify:
    It would have been a blindside block had it met the criteria for a blindside block. It was nothing resembling a crack back block.

    Blindside blocks require the blocker to be moving toward his own goal line (against the grain of the play if you will). That clearly wasn't happening with the Perkins play.

    For sarkastic: One of the criteria for a blindside block is that the blocker comes at the opponent from the side or from behind (BRB, JO). It should never be called a blindside block in this scenario because the block is coming from the front of the blockee.



    Clear as mud?

    What is clear is that the only people on earth that you don't think suck or are epic dreckfest beings are officials.

    I'm surprised people are surprised by that
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    RaceBannon said:

    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    Let me clarify:
    It would have been a blindside block had it met the criteria for a blindside block. It was nothing resembling a crack back block.

    Blindside blocks require the blocker to be moving toward his own goal line (against the grain of the play if you will). That clearly wasn't happening with the Perkins play.

    For sarkastic: One of the criteria for a blindside block is that the blocker comes at the opponent from the side or from behind (BRB, JO). It should never be called a blindside block in this scenario because the block is coming from the front of the blockee.



    Clear as mud?

    What is clear is that the only people on earth that you don't think suck or are epic dreckfest beings are officials.

    I'm surprised people are surprised by that
    I think a few members of the onfield crew should be missing a game or two for fucking that call up. I think the replay officials for that game should be DONE. Not warned, just DONE.

    Corrente actually wanted the ability to fix this shit but the teams got in the way, if Pereira's story is true.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TTJ
    TTJ Member Posts: 4,827
    Constructive criticism for Jim Blackwood:

    image
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    MikeDamone said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    Horseshit call
    image

    I don't get it I guess. The guy was coming after Ross. No helmet leading, no crack back, no blind side. Hit him square in the shoulders. The guy was leveled on a clean block.
    A bunch of people are missing the meaning of a blind side block.

    Blind side refers to the position on the field in relation to which way the play is moving. Not which way the player is facing.

    He is a defenseless player by rule. The only discretionary issue is whether Perkins targeted him. Its a weak call because he used his shoulder and he was barely moving before initiating the block. But what the ref must have looked at is that he left his feet on the follow through.

    The ref should watch some hockey games. There is a huge difference between launching yourself through the air and powering up and through a hit such that you leave the ground on the follow through. One should be ejectable and the other shouldn't.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sarktastic
    sarktastic Member Posts: 9,208
    You're missing the fact the pussy player saw what was coming but turned his vision back toward making the tackle.

    It was a bullshit call and wasn't overturned by the P-12 office ONLY due to the fact Scott is in the middle of a fire storm right now for not supporting his refs.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    FremontTroll said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    Horseshit call
    image

    I don't get it I guess. The guy was coming after Ross. No helmet leading, no crack back, no blind side. Hit him square in the shoulders. The guy was leveled on a clean block.
    A bunch of people are missing the meaning of a blind side block.

    Blind side refers to the position on the field in relation to which way the play is moving. Not which way the player is facing.

    He is a defenseless player by rule. The only discretionary issue is whether Perkins targeted him. Its a weak call because he used his shoulder and he was barely moving before initiating the block. But what the ref must have looked at is that he left his feet on the follow through.

    The ref should watch some hockey games. There is a huge difference between launching yourself through the air and powering up and through a hit such that you leave the ground on the follow through. One should be ejectable and the other shouldn't.
    He's not a defenseless player. He was blocked from in front by a player moving forward.

    Hope this helps.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TTJ
    TTJ Member Posts: 4,827
    FremontTroll said:

    A bunch of people are missing the meaning of a blind side block.

    Blind side refers to the position on the field in relation to which way the play is moving. Not which way the player is facing.

    He is a defenseless player by rule. The only discretionary issue is whether Perkins targeted him. Its a weak call because he used his shoulder and he was barely moving before initiating the block. But what the ref must have looked at is that he left his feet on the follow through.

    Actually, by rule, this play involves neither (1) a blindside block, nor (2) a defenseless player, nor (3) targeting. Oh for three ain't bad; you should play first base for the Mariners.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whatshouldicareabout
    whatshouldicareabout Member Posts: 13,014
    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    He's not a defenseless player. He was blocked from in front by a player moving forward.

    Hope this helps.

    This.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    FremontTroll said:

    MikeDamone said:

    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    Horseshit call
    image

    I don't get it I guess. The guy was coming after Ross. No helmet leading, no crack back, no blind side. Hit him square in the shoulders. The guy was leveled on a clean block.
    A bunch of people are missing the meaning of a blind side block.

    Blind side refers to the position on the field in relation to which way the play is moving. Not which way the player is facing.

    He is a defenseless player by rule. The only discretionary issue is whether Perkins targeted him. Its a weak call because he used his shoulder and he was barely moving before initiating the block. But what the ref must have looked at is that he left his feet on the follow through.

    The ref should watch some hockey games. There is a huge difference between launching yourself through the air and powering up and through a hit such that you leave the ground on the follow through. One should be ejectable and the other shouldn't.
    He's not a defenseless player. He was blocked from in front by a player moving forward.

    Hope this helps.
    I didn't write the rule.

    He is defenseless by rule because of Perkins moving parallel to his goal line and approaching from the defenders side. Doesn't matter that he turned and got hit in the chest.

    The issue is whether he was targeted. I already explained he was not targeted and that is why it was a bad call.

    Hope this helps.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter