FB: Northwest Conference

[D O.C.]

FYI....

Late notice and I know some of you are living out in the hinterlands
but Art Larrance is planning to put the Linfield-Whitewater football
game on the big screens at the Raccoon Lodge in Portland Saturday
morning. He's setting up a brunch (don't know the price) or many other
details other than he is planning for a 9 a.m. start (game is at 10).
Will know more later.

Raccoon Lodge & Brew
Pub at  7424 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy, Portland, OR 97225

[swede]

Good night Ben

[Frank Rossi]

Anyone care if the kid that was taken to the hospital ok?  I doubt it.

That comment is uncalled for.   It was a clean hit.   One of your players did a questionable block on our defensive player---and he now has to undergo knee surgery. 

Football is a brutal game; sometimes players make mistakes in the heat of battle.   Players unfortunately do get hurt.   That entire punt return was magnificent football---the Linfield way---clean, hard hitting.

I of course am sorry that your player was hurt.    I am also sorry that we lost two good players in the game.   

GT

By the letter of the law, hit #2 was not a legal hit (#16 of Linfield).  Here are the NCAA interpretations from this year concerning this specific situation:

Blindside Block: Targeting Foul? 3. As Team B is returning a kickoff, B66 races across the field in pursuit of A77.  When he gets close enough, B66 executes a blindside block against A77 by launching and driving his shoulder into A77's rib cage. RULING:  Legal block.  Although A77 is by definition a defenseless player and B66's action includes a launch, this is not a foul under Rule 9-1-4 because the initial contact is not to A77's head or neck area. (9-1-4, 2-27-14) 

Blindside Block: Targeting Foul? 4. As Team B is returning a kickoff, B66 races across the field in pursuit of A77.  When he gets close enough, B66 executes a blindside block against A77 by launching and driving his shoulder or elbow into the side of A77's helmet. RULING:  Foul by B66, targeting and initiating contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.  15-yard penalty (three-and-one enforcement).  B66 is disqualified from the game.  (9-1-4, 2-27-14)

[Jonny Utah]

Anyone care if the kid that was taken to the hospital ok?  I doubt it.

That comment is uncalled for.   It was a clean hit.   One of your players did a questionable block on our defensive player---and he now has to undergo knee surgery. 

Football is a brutal game; sometimes players make mistakes in the heat of battle.   Players unfortunately do get hurt.   That entire punt return was magnificent football---the Linfield way---clean, hard hitting.

I of course am sorry that your player was hurt.    I am also sorry that we lost two good players in the game.   

GT

By the letter of the law, hit #2 was not a legal hit (#16 of Linfield).  Here are the NCAA interpretations from this year concerning this specific situation:

Blindside Block: Targeting Foul? 3. As Team B is returning a kickoff, B66 races across the field in pursuit of A77.  When he gets close enough, B66 executes a blindside block against A77 by launching and driving his shoulder into A77's rib cage. RULING:  Legal block.  Although A77 is by definition a defenseless player and B66's action includes a launch, this is not a foul under Rule 9-1-4 because the initial contact is not to A77's head or neck area. (9-1-4, 2-27-14) 

Blindside Block: Targeting Foul? 4. As Team B is returning a kickoff, B66 races across the field in pursuit of A77.  When he gets close enough, B66 executes a blindside block against A77 by launching and driving his shoulder or elbow into the side of A77's helmet. RULING:  Foul by B66, targeting and initiating contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.  15-yard penalty (three-and-one enforcement).  B66 is disqualified from the game.  (9-1-4, 2-27-14)

The problem here Frank is that the player might have blocked the defender in the shoulder/chest, but the force of the hit caused the defenders helmet to snap back and then make contact with the Linfield player.

The blockers have to protect their own bodies/heads by staying somewhat high, and using their arms so their own heads don't make contact.  If they go any lower (ribcage like the NCAA rule example uses), then the blockers have to bring their own heads lower, possibly making themselves more susceptible to injury.

[MUC57]

Coco

Aloha to you and Mrs. Coco from Alliance, home of Mount Union.
Good luck Saturday against a very good Whitewater team.
I have certainly enjoyed following the Wildcats this year.
As you know, I have been a fan for years. Still wear my Linfield
sweatshirt.
I'll be keeping watch Saturday.
Malama pono!
Likeke.

[HSCTiger fan]

Fans of Linfield,

Upon reflection I still feel very strongly that the replay of the hit should not have been replayed over and over again while the injured player was lying on the field. But I have changed my mind with regards to the replay being promoted. I think if the situation had been reversed it would be on a highlight film for HSC and most likely any school. I blame my "crap" attitude on sleep deprivation and disappointment. It's an excuse but not a good one.

As for the actions of a few of the people in attendance (I do not want to call them fans), there were without a doubt some behaviors that were inexcusable. But here again, virtually everyone I talked with was exceptionally nice and I enjoyed meeting them. These are your true fans.  You guys on the message board are great. I am pulling for you throughout the rest of this tournament.

Finally, it was not my son who was injured. I only know that he flew back with the team. I'm confident he'll make a speedy and full recovery.

Best of luck this weekend.

[Frank Rossi]

The problem here Frank is that the player might have blocked the defender in the shoulder/chest, but the force of the hit caused the defenders helmet to snap back and then make contact with the Linfield player.

The blockers have to protect their own bodies/heads by staying somewhat high, and using their arms so their own heads don't make contact.  If they go any lower (ribcage like the NCAA rule example uses), then the blockers have to bring their own heads lower, possibly making themselves more susceptible to injury.

Jonny -

Note that I use "By the letter of the law..."  That said, the biggest problem with the block is that the player sets and launches himself with his helmet and shoulder leading -- I slowed it way down on my iPad at a bar last night because I was pretty sure, as a part-time ref, that it wasn't legal.  I asked friends of mine there to review it, too.  When I found the interpretations, we all agreed immediately that it fell into interpretation 4, not 3.  You don't have to hit the helmet -- it's the general height of the hit paired with the launch and the blindsided nature of the hit that is the problem.

That said, the irony is that the player 16 blocked wasn't the player he necessarily intended to block.  The player hit was coming in from the seam and ended up at the wrong place at the wrong time.  Yet, the NCAA purposely left out the question of intent in the implementation of the new penalty this year -- controversial, but that's the law of the NCAA land right now.  Every needed component under the rule was there, and as such, the block was a violation.

Now, let me be honest -- I'm not a fan of the implementation of the rule generally.  Union had a player ejected at WNEU midseason when both the Union DB and the WNEU WR had position to make a catch/INT.  The DB apparently made high contact in the attempt to make the INT or knock the ball away, and he was DQ'd in a bizarre call (later upheld even more bizarrely by the NCAA).  This is why I focus on the question of intent being left out -- players have been ejected this season for far less without an intent to launch themselves in the first place.  The block in question here, though, is pretty much the epitome of why the rule was implemented -- it's an attempt to get defensive players to act responsibly in applying blocks without risking both their health and the other player's health.  He's lucky he didn't dislocate his own shoulder on the hit with the way he projected himself.

[Jonny Utah]

The problem here Frank is that the player might have blocked the defender in the shoulder/chest, but the force of the hit caused the defenders helmet to snap back and then make contact with the Linfield player.

The blockers have to protect their own bodies/heads by staying somewhat high, and using their arms so their own heads don't make contact.  If they go any lower (ribcage like the NCAA rule example uses), then the blockers have to bring their own heads lower, possibly making themselves more susceptible to injury.

Jonny -

Note that I use "By the letter of the law..."  That said, the biggest problem with the block is that the player sets and launches himself with his helmet and shoulder leading -- I slowed it way down on my iPad at a bar last night because I was pretty sure, as a part-time ref, that it wasn't legal.  I asked friends of mine there to review it, too.  When I found the interpretations, we all agreed immediately that it fell into interpretation 4, not 3.  You don't have to hit the helmet -- it's the general height of the hit paired with the launch and the blindsided nature of the hit that is the problem.

That said, the irony is that the player 16 blocked wasn't the player he necessarily intended to block.  The player hit was coming in from the seam and ended up at the wrong place at the wrong time.  Yet, the NCAA purposely left out the question of intent in the implementation of the new penalty this year -- controversial, but that's the law of the NCAA land right now.  Every needed component under the rule was there, and as such, the block was a violation.

Now, let me be honest -- I'm not a fan of the implementation of the rule generally.  Union had a player ejected at WNEU midseason when both the Union DB and the WNEU WR had position to make a catch/INT.  The DB apparently made high contact in the attempt to make the INT or knock the ball away, and he was DQ'd in a bizarre call (later upheld even more bizarrely by the NCAA).  This is why I focus on the question of intent being left out -- players have been ejected this season for far less without an intent to launch themselves in the first place.  The block in question here, though, is pretty much the epitome of why the rule was implemented -- it's an attempt to get defensive players to act responsibly in applying blocks without risking both their health and the other player's health.  He's lucky he didn't dislocate his own shoulder on the hit with the way he projected himself.

But interpretation 4 says "helmet", while interpretation 3 says "not head or neck area"

I didn't see this in slow motion, but it looks like the hit was not at the head, but possibly the neck area?  At first glance, it looks like it was lower than the neck, but the force of the hit brought the defenders helmet into contact with the blocker.

I mean, you could interpret the upper chest as the "neck area" could you not?

[Frank Rossi]

The problem here Frank is that the player might have blocked the defender in the shoulder/chest, but the force of the hit caused the defenders helmet to snap back and then make contact with the Linfield player.

The blockers have to protect their own bodies/heads by staying somewhat high, and using their arms so their own heads don't make contact.  If they go any lower (ribcage like the NCAA rule example uses), then the blockers have to bring their own heads lower, possibly making themselves more susceptible to injury.

Jonny -

Note that I use "By the letter of the law..."  That said, the biggest problem with the block is that the player sets and launches himself with his helmet and shoulder leading -- I slowed it way down on my iPad at a bar last night because I was pretty sure, as a part-time ref, that it wasn't legal.  I asked friends of mine there to review it, too.  When I found the interpretations, we all agreed immediately that it fell into interpretation 4, not 3.  You don't have to hit the helmet -- it's the general height of the hit paired with the launch and the blindsided nature of the hit that is the problem.

That said, the irony is that the player 16 blocked wasn't the player he necessarily intended to block.  The player hit was coming in from the seam and ended up at the wrong place at the wrong time.  Yet, the NCAA purposely left out the question of intent in the implementation of the new penalty this year -- controversial, but that's the law of the NCAA land right now.  Every needed component under the rule was there, and as such, the block was a violation.

Now, let me be honest -- I'm not a fan of the implementation of the rule generally.  Union had a player ejected at WNEU midseason when both the Union DB and the WNEU WR had position to make a catch/INT.  The DB apparently made high contact in the attempt to make the INT or knock the ball away, and he was DQ'd in a bizarre call (later upheld even more bizarrely by the NCAA).  This is why I focus on the question of intent being left out -- players have been ejected this season for far less without an intent to launch themselves in the first place.  The block in question here, though, is pretty much the epitome of why the rule was implemented -- it's an attempt to get defensive players to act responsibly in applying blocks without risking both their health and the other player's health.  He's lucky he didn't dislocate his own shoulder on the hit with the way he projected himself.

But interpretation 4 says "helmet", while interpretation 3 says "not head or neck area"

I didn't see this in slow motion, but it looks like the hit was not at the head, but possibly the neck area?  At first glance, it looks like it was lower than the neck, but the force of the hit brought the defenders helmet into contact with the blocker.

I mean, you could interpret the upper chest as the "neck area" could you not?

PM me you cell number and I'll text you a slowed down clip of that specific hit.  I think it confirms a lot.

[wildcat11]

..and what I see is Meng hitting him with his shoulder right above the numbers of his chest which by the definitions you provided is a legal block.  I don't see him launching himself either but bracing for impact and I think that's a big difference. 

[Frank Rossi]

..and what I see is Meng hitting him with his shoulder right above the numbers of his chest.  I don't see him launching himself either but bracing for impact and I think that's a big difference.

You just contradicted yourself.  Either he's bracing for impact or he's creating the impact.  In the slowed down version, his feet are perpendicular to the ground at the time of impact and are coming off the ground.  It looks like his helmet made contact with the chin zone but the shoulder impact was in the upper sternum and enough to force the blindsided player back before the helmet became the primary issue.  I'll try to post the video and still via Twitter -- @FrankRossi -- never tried posting a video through there, though.

[wildcat11]

Frank,

Telly is a decent delivery system for twitter video.  I actually posted the video of the play on youtube.  I think we're just going to have to disagree.

[wildcat11]

Fans of Linfield,

Upon reflection I still feel very strongly that the replay of the hit should not have been replayed over and over again while the injured player was lying on the field. But I have changed my mind with regards to the replay being promoted. I think if the situation had been reversed it would be on a highlight film for HSC and most likely any school. I blame my "crap" attitude on sleep deprivation and disappointment. It's an excuse but not a good one.

As for the actions of a few of the people in attendance (I do not want to call them fans), there were without a doubt some behaviors that were inexcusable. But here again, virtually everyone I talked with was exceptionally nice and I enjoyed meeting them. These are your true fans.  You guys on the message board are great. I am pulling for you throughout the rest of this tournament.

Finally, it was not my son who was injured. I only know that he flew back with the team. I'm confident he'll make a speedy and full recovery.

Best of luck this weekend.

Last week was a blast HSCTiger fan.  Thanks for the banter and best of luck next season.

[Frank Rossi]

Frank,

Telly is a decent delivery system for twitter video.  I actually posted the video of the play on youtube.  I think we're just going to have to disagree.

TwitPic apparently is capable of doing video now, so I have both the pic and the isolation video under my @FrankRossi handle.

[D O.C.]

Let's just take conservation of momentum into the mix too. Meng weighs 220. What'd the offended guy weigh?

I want to thank the LINFIELD coaching staff and Athletic Director for trying to put us in the right place for an SOS that would seed us for 4 home games if we won the NWC.