"Bama's Bounty?" Will the SEC Suspend Dial?

A great example of another call where two people can see the play and come away with two different impressions. The one yard halo rule needs to be looked at.

Mullen and his rant? That's one where I don't think anyone watching can make a judgment on whether it should have been flagged or not. We have no idea what he was saying.

 

the rules ARE different when hitting a QB after a turnover.
just like the rules are different for them during actual gameplay.

back in the day, you could do exactly what Dial did, and there was never any questions raised.
hell when I was playing HS ball, we were taught to seek out and nail the QB on a turnover.
that's simply not the case anymore.

they are a protected species now.


personally, I'm not for suspending anyone for a good football hit.
but as I said earlier, if your gonna suspend Swearinger for his hit (penalty?yes, suspension? prolly shouldn't have), then you have to suspend Dial for seeking and destroying a QB who's nonchalantly jogging around watching a play.

 

That's the whole point, and it's a very good one. It's more about calling this every time it happens or quit calling it.

 

I hope this doesn't mean you're pickin Notre Dame?

 

I don't believe you're right.

Earlier in this thread someone brought up Gary Danielson making comments throughout this season about blocks like that one.

I've always heard this type of black called a crack-back block. There is a rule in the books now that cover those on things like kickoffs and punts. Gary's point this year has been the one aspect of the game they haven't penned a rule covering is the offense, turning into a defense, following a turnover.

If I'm wrong, Danielson is as well. Hell, that possibility certainly exists. To the best of my knowledge there isn't anything covering those types of hits and specifically labeling the QB as "protected species."

Quite frankly, I don't see how they can apply a special designation to a QB on a play like this. He's a defender who is trying to make a tackle which makes him no different than any other player on his team.

Swearinger looked to have launched himself at the WR coming across the field above the shoulder pads—at least that's how I recall seeing the hit. I don't believe that warranted a suspension.

It's almost like there are attempts to take away a part of the game that a defense can use to its advantage. One thing that was considered a trait of solid WR was one who was willing to cross the middle knowing he was going to get hit. It was something any defensive coordinator wanted that WR to consider before taking that route. If do this, I'm going to pay for it.

I realize this next statement is going past the point of absurdity.

How long will it be before it's two-hand touch on certain players?

Side note: And while we're having this discussion they are considering making it illegal to block below the waist. Sure, it does lead to injuries. But at the same time, if it is deemed as illegal in today's game, we are going to see some offensive schemes fall by the wayside as well—IE: option based attacks.

 

i may be wrong.
i've never actually read the rule book (and don't intend to).

but from watching football games, i SEE that the rules are interpreted differently when the QB is involved.
there are things you can do to anyone else on the field that will get you flagged if you do them to a QB.
is it written that way? I don't know, but in most games I see, it is enforced that way.


Swearinger did launch himself, and should have been penalized. I don't think he should have been suspended though.
But he WAS suspended.

The hit on Murray is less excusable than the one Swearinger did.

Swearinger was in the middle of the action, going at a guy moving full speed.
those hits happen.

Dial, spotted a defenseless QB and annihilated him while he was nonchalantly jogging on the field.
it should have absolutely been flagged (on that, we agree).

and if what Swearinger did was suspend-able, then so was what Dial did.

all I'm asking for is consistency.

 

You'll never get consistent penalties when applied to Bama, if at all. That is the point of this thread. Not Terry's absurd defense that Murray was going to make a tackle. If that were Dials concern, he would have defended the sideline where the interceptor was running and also passed up the lineman. Terry has zero objectivity and has thrown his lot in with TurdTimes as an unabashed homer. He will cling to whatever scenario suits his team. We are the ones with no dog in the hunt. You cant fix stupid.

 

Pretty certain the QB is fair game on a turnover. Even still, it was "unnessary roughness" in my opinion. I put it in quotations cause I'm not sure if it is within the interpretation of the rule; however, it was useless since he was not going to have any impact on the play. FURTHER, and more importantly, it looked to me like he went out of his way to try and inflict serious pain on him. It wasn't bang bang. He had a lot of time to think as he got closer to him. Not sure if that makes sense but watching it, it was like it was in slow motion.

Take the Criag Steltz hit on that State dude. Close to the same but the State guy was on the playside of the field and- from what I recall- in the vacinity of the ball.

 

I would suggest that you do have a dog in the fight. But it's more along the lines of rule or ruin.

 

Steve Shaw admitted it was missed and should have penalty, take it for what it's worth.