Wow there is analyzing and there is what this guy does. This must be shown to these refs to help them understand why this is a bad call.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSWosoQg8w

This must be shown to everyone else to help them understand how unbiased and objective this guy's opinion is:

http://www.drnoahdean.com/Bio.html

"Dr. Noah Dean is a Texas native who is deeply involved in the world of fitness, health, and wellness. He has a M.S. in Kinesiology from Angelo State University and a Ph.D. in Motor Neuroscience from Texas A&M University."

Watched it already. Just pissed me off.

quote:

---

further proof that these actions are an act of defense is the lack of arm wrapping... we also see no evidence of an explosive force into the receiver

---

seems like a text book Trent Hunter tackle to me

Bigsteve713 Exactly what I was thinking. Trent never wraps up! Though he does explode through tackles which he clearly did not do. Makes me sick to watch.

+1 steve

do you really think the official who threw the flag still thinks it was a good call? with all the replays and angles clearly showing it wasnt?

really?

he had half a second to decide, and he decided wrong. it has happened before. it will happen again.

quote:

---

he had half a second to decide, and he decided wrong. it has happened before. it will happen again.

---

Exactly my point. Better understanding the motion and physics of this type of a thing will better assist referees from making the same mistakes again, especially when a game is on the line.

lol nerds

Steve I laughed!

"Now, for my last bit of evidence... uhhhhh... that such a call is completely unjustified... is the moment directly after the discussed collision. Now, the momentum of the defensive back, uh, Mr. Hunter, and the collision with the receiver carries him into the sideline well off-balance. Uh, but even so, when he comes to his own coach, or staff of some sort with, with the Aggies, the same actions are carried out. You see a lowered shoulder and helmet and his inside arm is positioned to push away, or push against, the collision."

This is the scholarly doctor's presentation that Hunter makes the same movement with his body as he closes in on the sideline coach or assistant.

Lowered shoulder and helmet? ok. Inside arm pushing away? ok. But if it's the same reaction - why against the Texas player, does Hunter's helmet lower into the WR, but against the coach, his head is dramatically going away to avoid the coach? One is a defensive reaction, one is not.

for steve

freeze, are you seriously going to argue that this was a good call?

Yes. By rule, and correctly applied.

steve is tard

motion, physics? wow....

Just insert an intent element into the NCAA definition and you have solved all of this.

We don't need PhD holders out there measuring the field on 4th down.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/ryan1357/helmettohelmetrule.png

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee101/panicstream/16hqo29.gif

/thread

[This message has been edited by PanicStream (edited 11/30/2011 2:34a).]

it was a bull*****call

and it was a bull*****call last year against nebraska, just went the other way

this is my favorite part

Let's just ask the generous sips to vacate the win. Move on. These are not the droids you are looking for.

More evidence how pathetic some on this board are.

It was a ticky tack call, but a correct call.

The rule states "when in question"...receiver hit in helmet by crown of helmet of db. Head snapped to his right. Perfectly reasonable to decide this falls into "when in question" part of rule.

Let it go.

We lost.

quote:

---

More evidence how pathetic some on this board are.

It was a ticky tack call, but a correct call.

The rule states "when in question"...receiver hit in helmet by crown of helmet of db. Head snapped to his right. Perfectly reasonable to decide this falls into "when in question" part of rule.

Let it go.

We lost.

---

I regretfully agree.

Ticky tack, and it's almost hard to watch what a pansy sport football is becoming, but the fact that so many are arguing it back and forth proves that it is in doubt, meaning that, by rule, it must be called.

The call left the ball inside their own 40 still iirc. McCoy completed 3 passes and ran for 25 yds on chicken legs after that. If the D made plays, nobody would be talking about a questionable call.

quote:

---

This must be shown to these refs to help them understand why this is a bad call.

---

Has someone sent this presentation to the Big 12 offices?

Not a single one of my sip friends disputed that it was a bad call...that's how I know

Trent Hunter always just throws his body at the offensive player. Never uses hands. Im glad he is not coming back.

Yeah, let's require physics profs to be refs. It would only take nine minutes per play.

He spends the entire time talking about the player's intent when intent is not part of the rule.

as the announcers stated right after the play, "You never want the officals to determine the outcome of the game." Clearly both Craig and Jesse thought the call was bad.

This game was like watching two maimed donkeys fight over a carrot. This thread it like watching 100 maimed donkeys complain about who got the carrot.

Definitely one of the worst calls ever made considering the situation.

I think it is the worst call I've ever seen. It is not the reason we lost, but those of you who are claiming it was the correct call are massive dumbasses.

There was nothing that could be done to avoid the contact, but there was NO QUESTION that the sip WR was NOT targeted. That is obvious to anyone who isn't a massive dumbass.

He hit him with the crown of his helmet in the helmet. Davis's arms are extended. He can't protect himself. The argument is, well, he could have hit him harder. Well, again, intent is not part of the rule. The judgment is made on the result of the play.

Let's say a player intends to light someone up. He'll take the 15 yards. But he misses the guy for whatever reason. Is the flag thrown? Of course not. The official is judging the result of the play. The intent of the rule is to limit these sorts of collisions. You don't do that with benefit of the doubt to the tackler. You do it by saying the benefit of the doubt is in favor of the player being hit.

Maybe it's a bad rule. I've seen a lot of questionable calls on it over the last couple of years. But this was called according to the rule.

[This message has been edited by Bob in Houston (edited 11/30/2011 9:19a).]

There are too many massive dumbasses on this thread.

It was the worst call I have ever seen.

Not many ag tags arguing for the call.

quote:

---

But this was called according to the rule.

---

Why do so many of you fools not know what it means to "target" someone? To target something, you have to be trying to hit it. When you target something, you are doing what you are trying to do. Only a complete dumbass could watch that play and think that Trent wanted to hit that sip wr; he was trying NOT to hit the sip wr. As such, it is obvious that he was NOT targeting. As such, it is obvious that it was NOT a correct call according to the rules.

quote:

---

The argument is, well, he could have hit him harder.

---

False. Yes, there was helmet to helmet contact. Not all helmet to helmet contact is against the rules. It is against the rules to "target and initiate contact" with you helmet.

Learn what it means to target something, and you might begin to see why you are so obviously wrong.

[This message has been edited by Whistling For Flies (edited 11/30/2011 9:25a).]