NCAA Football, 2014-2015

[Berkut]

You can tell the character of a man based on his opinion of cheap shots on a kicker.

Kickers lose kicker protection when they chase the ball carrier.

Agreed.

Well, sort of. It depends on what protection you are talking about.

They lose the "You cannot hit the kicker" protection, but they are still a defenseless player throughout the play.

That doesn't mean they can no longer be hit, but it does mean that if you target them the penalty will be 15 yards plus ejection, as opposed to just 15 yards.

And this was definitely targetting.

Also, even if this wasn't the kicker, it was someone receiving a blind-side block. That is a defenseless player as well. So he is doubly a defenseless player.

But remember, a defenseless player can still be legally hit.

The blocker leads with his forearm into the shoulders and head to the person he is blocking. It is a total cheap shot with intent to injure, and these kinds of blocks are supposed to be out of the game, for obvious reasons.

I was agreeing with the general sentiment of Yi's post not the technicalities of the rules.

Fine, but the general sentiment of his post doesn't apply to the particulars of this play, for the reasons I stated. The only protection a kicker has against being hit is long gone, of course.

But the enhanced penalties regarding hitting a defenseless player are still very much in force.

That said I just saw the hit on the kicker just a few minutes ago.  A forearm shiver to the head of any player should be a penalty these days, regardless of who is hitting who and the situation.

Agreed. Had this NOT been a defenseless player, well...it's actually hard to say. The hit would not have been the same if the target knew it was coming, so it is nearly impossible to say. The violence of the hit was dependent on it being a blind side block, which is exactly why blind side targets are considered defenseless.

But yes - any hit to the head with the forearm should be a persona foul, barring some clearly mitigating circumstances like the target compressing at the last moment.

The onus is on the hitter to NOT hit at or above the shoulders.

More generally to the idea of smearing the kicker across the field:

1. Not all legal hits are clean and not all illegal hits are cheap.
2. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Well put.
[/quote]

[alfred russel]

Well fuck, that is why I went to discussing Ohio State.

FSU had the 33rd strength of schedule and won all their games.

Ohio State had the 55th strength of schedule and lost one.

I don't see much of a case to leave FSU out of the playoff, based on the criteria the committee was given.

I agree FSU should have been in the playoff. However, there is an argument that Ohio St is the better team(even before today) when you look at the scores of those games. Florida St. only won by over 20 points twice(and the one against the Citadel was much closer than it should have been). Ohio St. beat Kent St by 66, Wisconsin by 59, Illinois by 41 and Rutgers by 39.

Well yeah--I seem to get flamed no matter what I post. I post statistical analysis indicating that FSU is not so good, and I get flamed for that. I say they should be in the playoff, and I get flamed for that.

As long as the game is primarily about wins and losses vs strength of schedule in evaluations, and I think it should be, a team like FSU should be in the playoff. If you want to go by more subjective measures, do you take into account that Ohio State has a 3rd QB making his second start?

[Berkut]

I don't think there is any credible argument that can be made that would have FSU out of the playoffs, given how the spots are assigned.

That being said, it was also pretty clear that they were not as good as their record suggested, and this result is not much of a surprise.

[alfred russel]

What are you talking about?

This has nothing to do with what risks players are willing to accept - the players will accept nearly any risk to play.

This is about making the game as safe as possible while maintaining the spirit of the game.

Many people believe that unless you are allowed to send 18 and 19 year old kids to the hospital with brain damage, then the spirit of the game is lost.

Most people don't agree, and lucky enough, the people who are in charge of the sport don't agree, and maybe more imporantly they legal environment we live in doesn't accept that the willful infliction of brain damage is necessary to the enjoyment of football.

I think the rule changes suck, and my enjoyment of the game has significantly declined, and the rule changes are prompted by lawyers attempting to reduce legal risks working with administrators trying to protect revenue streams.

[sbr]

Well fuck, that is why I went to discussing Ohio State.

FSU had the 33rd strength of schedule and won all their games.

Ohio State had the 55th strength of schedule and lost one.

I don't see much of a case to leave FSU out of the playoff, based on the criteria the committee was given.

I agree FSU should have been in the playoff. However, there is an argument that Ohio St is the better team(even before today) when you look at the scores of those games. Florida St. only won by over 20 points twice(and the one against the Citadel was much closer than it should have been). Ohio St. beat Kent St by 66, Wisconsin by 59, Illinois by 41 and Rutgers by 39.

Well yeah--I seem to get flamed no matter what I post. I post statistical analysis indicating that FSU is not so good, and I get flamed for that. I say they should be in the playoff, and I get flamed for that.

As long as the game is primarily about wins and losses vs strength of schedule in evaluations, and I think it should be, a team like FSU should be in the playoff. If you want to go by more subjective measures, do you take into account that Ohio State has a 3rd QB making his second start?

Well, you weren't flamed by the same person for both positions were you? 

I might have done so, but I have never claimed to be consistent or logical when talking shit. 

[sbr]

I don't think there is any credible argument that can be made that would have FSU out of the playoffs, given how the spots are assigned.

That being said, it was also pretty clear that they were not as good as their record suggested, and this result is not much of a surprise.

I agree, I was just fired up after the game and was carpet bombing the thread with nonsense.

[Neil]

That was a pretty fancy catch.  I think I'm cheering for Ohio State...

[Neil]

The NFL would discipline for that cheapshot on the kicker.  Can college football do any less?

[alfred russel]

I don't know if either of these teams will beat Oregon.

FSU's defense sucks, so maybe one of these teams will have more success. Probably more hope for Alabama. But their defense better be very stout because no way Blake Sims can lead a team to a shootout win against Mariota.

[alfred russel]

I think the rule changes suck, and my enjoyment of the game has significantly declined, and the rule changes are prompted by lawyers attempting to reduce legal risks working with administrators trying to protect revenue streams.

To add to the things I don't like, I thought the crystal ball trophy was better. The new trophy looks like a vagina.

Which I guess represents what the guys are playing for.

[Admiral Yi]

Dorsey, you're at risk of turning into the Captain Occupy of college ball.

[alfred russel]

Dorsey, you're at risk of turning into the Captain Occupy of college ball.

sbr has more posts than me today. 

Also, for years I didn't post at all in this thread and focused on boring ass economics and business stuff because I was trying to be incognito. I have things to share. 

[sbr]

Dorsey, you're at risk of turning into the Captain Occupy of college ball.

sbr has more posts than me today. 

Also, for years I didn't post at all in this thread and focused on boring ass economics and business stuff because I was trying to be incognito. I have things to share. 

My favorite team won the first playoff game.  I am allowed as many posts as I want with no repercussions.

[dps]

What are you talking about?

This has nothing to do with what risks players are willing to accept - the players will accept nearly any risk to play.

This is about making the game as safe as possible while maintaining the spirit of the game.

Many people believe that unless you are allowed to send 18 and 19 year old kids to the hospital with brain damage, then the spirit of the game is lost.

Most people don't agree, and lucky enough, the people who are in charge of the sport don't agree, and maybe more imporantly they legal environment we live in doesn't accept that the willful infliction of brain damage is necessary to the enjoyment of football.

I think the rule changes suck, and my enjoyment of the game has significantly declined, and the rule changes are prompted by lawyers attempting to reduce legal risks working with administrators trying to protect revenue streams.

In general, I agree with you that many of the rules changes in recent years do suck, but headhunting has always been dirty play, even when it was legal.

[Berkut]

This is nice. A pac-12 vs B1G championship would be great. Still a lot of football to be played though...