Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 80

Thread: 3 Flora JFL coaches resign

  1. #31
    Plus Member IHSAClinician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the suburbs
    Posts
    15,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion45 View Post
    Agreed, it couldn't be anything but targeting, dirty play, for whatever reason the player did that. But I would also estimate there is a certain amount of ignorance of the game going on there
    as well
    Not so sure about targeting. Does not fit the usual interpretation of that rule. But that is irrelevant as the hit was totally unnecessary and flagrant IMO. Targeting does not change the reason why you call the foul on this play.
    Waiting for the summer.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IHSAClinician View Post
    Not so sure about targeting. Does not fit the usual interpretation of that rule. But that is irrelevant as the hit was totally unnecessary and flagrant IMO. Targeting does not change the reason why you call the foul on this play.
    From NFHS:

    Rule 2-20-2 provides a definition
    for targeting. Targeting is an act of
    taking aim and initiating contact to an
    opponent above the shoulders with the
    helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or
    shoulders. The penalty for targeting is
    15 yards. The offending player may be
    disqualified if the foul is deemed to be
    flagrant.
    Rule 2-32-16 defines a defenseless
    player as a player who, because of
    his physical position and focus of
    concentration, is especially vulnerable
    to injury.Additiona l rules coverage is
    provided in Rule 9-3-3i(3).
    Sounds like targeting a defenseless player to me...now I'll wait for the 50 page retort as to why I am wrong.

  3. #33

    Default

    I'm impressed how y'all read this kid's mind based on a 3 second clip...

  4. #34
    Plus Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Evansville, IN area
    Posts
    7,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HSATC View Post
    I'm impressed how y'all read this kid's mind based on a 3 second clip...
    Again with this. What wisdom in 13 words. Even if your statement accurately reflected the sentiment of everyone else on here, do you really believe that seeing a 4-hour clip would significantly change what is visible in the critical 4 seconds?

    We can never know intent. However, the act was entirely consistent with an act intended to do harm to someone. For some, that is enough to say that there was something seriously wrong. The steady video provides a good view of the charging player's speed and stance. If you allow me the assumption that he did not fall from a skateboard or other moving vehicle just prior to entering the frame, I'll argue all day long that no sane person runs at an obstacle like that without some assurance that everything will be okay.

    If that defender was like most boys his age, he was a wound spring full of energy. He was let loose and he hit something. Violently. We may never know who aimed him - whether it was a coach, a parent, or himself. It doesn't matter. At best, somebody played with something dangerous without reading the instructions, and another kid got seriously hurt. It's absurd to hand out passes on this just because the video isn't longer.

  5. #35
    Plus Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Franklin County
    Posts
    1,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdsv View Post
    Again with this. What wisdom in 13 words. Even if your statement accurately reflected the sentiment of everyone else on here, do you really believe that seeing a 4-hour clip would significantly change what is visible in the critical 4 seconds?

    We can never know intent. However, the act was entirely consistent with an act intended to do harm to someone. For some, that is enough to say that there was something seriously wrong. The steady video provides a good view of the charging player's speed and stance. If you allow me the assumption that he did not fall from a skateboard or other moving vehicle just prior to entering the frame, I'll argue all day long that no sane person runs at an obstacle like that without some assurance that everything will be okay.

    If that defender was like most boys his age, he was a wound spring full of energy. He was let loose and he hit something. Violently. We may never know who aimed him - whether it was a coach, a parent, or himself. It doesn't matter. At best, somebody played with something dangerous without reading the instructions, and another kid got seriously hurt. It's absurd to hand out passes on this just because the video isn't longer.
    Haven't seen a single "pass" given in this thread. It was nine kinds of wrong.
    But, at least people have backed off the "clear intent to injure" crap.

  6. #36
    Plus Member IHSAClinician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the suburbs
    Posts
    15,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by future ex coach View Post
    From NFHS:



    Sounds like targeting a defenseless player to me...now I'll wait for the 50 page retort as to why I am wrong.
    OK, but targeting is usually not a player in a stance and contact with their head. Players hit heads in line play all the time and no one has suggested (even the rules people) to call targeting every time it happens. There is a reason for that, because rules often have interpretations behind them, not just wording of the rules alone. Again, you can call that and we will see how short your season is. And again irrelevant in this specific play because the hit was unnecessary and irrelevant where he was actually hit. But you go on worrying about it. Just did not fit or matter. But then again we have coaches that say "helmet to helmet" is a foul too (which it is not alone). You would have been better saying the player was a defenseless player honestly.
    Waiting for the summer.

  7. #37

    Default

    You would have been better saying the player was a defenseless player honestly.

    Quote Originally Posted by future ex coach View Post
    From NFHS:
    Sounds like targeting a defenseless player to me...
    Insert AFLAC duck here

  8. #38
    Plus Member IHSAClinician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the suburbs
    Posts
    15,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by future ex coach View Post
    Insert AFLAC duck here
    You realize the defenition of a defenseless player does not include a player in a stance? It has not been determined by the rules makers they are vunerable as they often are about to hit someone. IJS.

    And none of this changes the fact that if you hit him in the shoulder, leg or side, the penalty would be the same. That was kind of the point. He was not going on extra, secret probation if it was a targeting call or not.
    Waiting for the summer.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IHSAClinician View Post
    You realize the defenition of a defenseless player does not include a player in a stance? It has not been determined by the rules makers they are vunerable as they often are about to hit someone. IJS.

    And none of this changes the fact that if you hit him in the shoulder, leg or side, the penalty would be the same. That was kind of the point. He was not going on extra, secret probation if it was a targeting call or not.
    "A defenseless player is a player who, because of his
    physical position and focus of concentration, is especially
    vulnerable to injury."

    Rule also specifically notes that the examples are NOT exclusive. Anyhow I don't expect you to admit you are wrong.

    Maybe an interpretation from the NFHS or IHSA would be in order for such a situation, although this is JFL. I'd bet my house they would all say he fits the definition of defenseless. Oh well...

  10. #40
    Plus Member IHSAClinician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the suburbs
    Posts
    15,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by future ex coach View Post
    "A defenseless player is a player who, because of his
    physical position and focus of concentration, is especially
    vulnerable to injury."

    Rule also specifically notes that the examples are NOT exclusive. Anyhow I don't expect you to admit you are wrong.

    Maybe an interpretation from the NFHS or IHSA would be in order for such a situation, although this is JFL. I'd bet my house they would all say he fits the definition of defenseless. Oh well...
    Again, if you feel so. But when you are in a stance, you are likely aware of the fact that someone might hit you in a moment. I doubt there needs to be an interpretation from the NF or the IHSA considering that they already have sited what would be targeting or a defenseless player. Both of those things are irrelevant classifications because a hit that is unncessary or flagrant does not need to be targeting or a hit on a defenseless player to spark a flag in this case. You can spear someone that is not those things and be considered flagrant without hitting anyone directly in the head. Or throw someone down to the ground and not be targeting or defenseless player you are doing it to. Heck Blindside blocking is a perfect example of this as the player is not considered defenseless in many cases and is still a foul. And if in a blindside block the player can see the hit coming, that is not a foul at all as long as the hit otherwise is legal.

    My main point again was that you do not need these things to take this play and suggest the player should be ejected regardless of what you call it by definition. People read this site and use definitions that do not apply or are a stretch. And then they repeat those things when those definitions are not likely appropriate and will argue that they are right or making some major point. My only issue was you said "targeting" like that meant some major penalty that would have come without targeting in this situation. The penalty from an official's standpoint can and likely would be the same regardless of where the player or when the player was hit. It was unncessesary roughness as you do not see these kinds of plays in the vast majority of situations like this.
    Waiting for the summer.

  11. #41
    Plus Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Woods around golf courses, airports
    Posts
    11,763

    Default

    I've yet to see any discussion as to why the coaches resigned.
    I have to stop asking how stupid can you be? Too many people consider it a challenge.

  12. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IHSAClinician View Post
    Again, if you feel so. But when you are in a stance, you are likely aware of the fact that someone might hit you in a moment. I doubt there needs to be an interpretation from the NF or the IHSA considering that they already have sited what would be targeting or a defenseless player. Both of those things are irrelevant classifications because a hit that is unncessary or flagrant does not need to be targeting or a hit on a defenseless player to spark a flag in this case. You can spear someone that is not those things and be considered flagrant without hitting anyone directly in the head. Or throw someone down to the ground and not be targeting or defenseless player you are doing it to. Heck Blindside blocking is a perfect example of this as the player is not considered defenseless in many cases and is still a foul. And if in a blindside block the player can see the hit coming, that is not a foul at all as long as the hit otherwise is legal.

    My main point again was that you do not need these things to take this play and suggest the player should be ejected regardless of what you call it by definition. People read this site and use definitions that do not apply or are a stretch. And then they repeat those things when those definitions are not likely appropriate and will argue that they are right or making some major point. My only issue was you said "targeting" like that meant some major penalty that would have come without targeting in this situation. The penalty from an official's standpoint can and likely would be the same regardless of where the player or when the player was hit. It was unncessesary roughness as you do not see these kinds of plays in the vast majority of situations like this.
    uh...ok...a lineman in a stance is ready for that kind of full speed hit. Nope, not buying it. Clearly, it fits the definition of defenseless as they are concentrating on when the snap is going to be. It's not like your ordinary offsides contact.

    NFHS has given examples that ARE NOT exclusive. That's why there is a definition and this fits the definition...end of discussion.

  13. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IHSAClinician View Post
    You realize the defenition of a defenseless player does not include a player in a stance? It has not been determined by the rules makers they are vunerable as they often are about to hit someone. IJS.

    And none of this changes the fact that if you hit him in the shoulder, leg or side, the penalty would be the same. That was kind of the point. He was not going on extra, secret probation if it was a targeting call or not.
    You seriously don't think someone in a stance isn't considered a "defenseless player"? Unless in your mind the snapper isn't in a "stance". Have you forgotten there is a specific rule stating that you cannot hit the snapper on a punt or try? Why do you think that rule is there?

  14. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by future ex coach View Post
    uh...ok...a lineman in a stance is ready for that kind of full speed hit. Nope, not buying it. Clearly, it fits the definition of defenseless as they are concentrating on when the snap is going to be. It's not like your ordinary offsides contact.

    NFHS has given examples that ARE NOT exclusive. That's why there is a definition and this fits the definition...end of discussion.
    Nope.
    One Tin Soldier Rides Away

  15. #45
    Plus Member IHSAClinician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the suburbs
    Posts
    15,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ijuswannaplay2 View Post
    You seriously don't think someone in a stance isn't considered a "defenseless player"? Unless in your mind the snapper isn't in a "stance". Have you forgotten there is a specific rule stating that you cannot hit the snapper on a punt or try? Why do you think that rule is there?
    The term "defenseless player" is an actual definition within the rules of the game. And a snapper can be hit when he snaps the ball and the only protection they are given that they would not normally have is when a team is in a scrimmage kick formation, which is also definitions.

    And can you show me where a player a lineman (also a definition) is a defenseless player by rule before a snap? When you do then maybe you might have a point here, but it just seems like you are trying to take a "real world" situation and apply it to the rules that are clearly defined in the rulebook.
    Waiting for the summer.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
IllinoisHighSchoolSports.com covers Illinois high school sports in detail, from article links to message boards to schedules and scoreboards. IHSS also awards yearly scholarships to graduating student-athletics. IHSS has awarded over $50,000 since we started the scholarship program.
Links

IHSS

Join us