|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 1, 2008 6:43:29 GMT -6
tim--I would argue that it IS a cheap shot...specifically because it is a premeditated act that is a foul.
tog-- What would the difference between this play (illegal in both fed and NCAA rules), and a very late roughing the passer play be (illegal) or a play where you tell a gunner on a punt to level the returner before the ball (illegal). All of these situations are designed to "get into a players head" at best, or to eliminate hiim from competition at worse. All are B.S Cheap shots.
I extremely surprised to see comment like this come from a coach whose opinions and thoughts on this board are valued by so many.
You say yourself :
Hell, each additional step means the QB is in a BETTER position to protect himself. So why would it be uncool? The QB could have POTENTIALLY thrown an INT or the receiver could have potentially fumbled the ball right (since you defend your argument with a fairly weak "potential" tackler position--completely ignoring the fact that the timing of the block is completely ineffective as an attempt to stop a potential tackler on a deep kick...)
Again, tog---99% of the time I agree with you. In this case..you are just flat wrong..and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where the line of actions lead to. Look at the retaliation to the action. Essentially we have two grown men (coaches) who are supposed to be LEADERS of boys/young men...purposely instructing those boys to HURT each other for the sake of HURTING and intimidation.
Where does it stop? If you can't block a three tech, do you intentionally post and chop him (illegal--just like this kick) to make him see "how much he wants to play?" Ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Nov 1, 2008 8:15:02 GMT -6
It is dirty.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 1, 2008 9:16:10 GMT -6
c. The kicker of a free kick may not be blocked until he has advanced five yards beyond his restraining line then if he goes 5 yards he is fair game ok you guys are right about protecting defenseless players
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 1, 2008 9:41:31 GMT -6
and
I was wrong.
I am tired of seeing personal foul penalties for kids playing hard nosed though. Really tired of it. This was my frustration about that. I should have kept it to myself
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Nov 1, 2008 10:50:02 GMT -6
Tog,
Nothing makes me respect someone more than to when they say they are wrong. I appreciate that.
I agree that was a cheap shot.
But, I also I am tired of seeing personal fouls for hard nosed football. We had two late hit penalities on the qb this year and on both there is no way we could have pulled up even if we tried. One step and collision.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 1, 2008 11:05:26 GMT -6
and I was wrong. I am tired of seeing personal foul penalties for kids playing hard nosed though. Really tired of it. This was my frustration about that. I should have kept it to myself And the tiny bit of respect that I lost...is now back 10 fold I could certainly work with you coach! I agree with you 100%...I just don't really consider THAT play hard nosed football. But the stuff they have been calling in the NFL/NCAA lately...ewww. I understand the reason for it...but heck, at some point where is the line drawn.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 1, 2008 11:09:27 GMT -6
my "why don't they just put him in a dress and not allow anyone to touch him" button was pushed and I went too far with it
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Nov 1, 2008 11:58:22 GMT -6
my "why don't they just put him in a dress and not allow anyone to touch him" button was pushed and I went too far with it I understand and agree. Sometimes officals just see something that "looks wrong", and they throw the flag.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Nov 1, 2008 12:55:36 GMT -6
it is legal but it is some thing I would not do. why waste a blocker on the kicker.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 1, 2008 13:00:31 GMT -6
it is legal but it is some thing I would not do. why waste a blocker on the kicker. Air--clearly it is ILLEGAL as has been pointed out by officials in the thread. As to why waste a blocker on the kicker..in this situation, the kicker apparently is a Standford commitment. The reason the coach chose to illegally "waste" the blocker was simply to injure /knock out the player.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Nov 1, 2008 13:10:29 GMT -6
it is legal but it is some thing I would not do. why waste a blocker on the kicker. Air--clearly it is ILLEGAL as has been pointed out by officials in the thread. As to why waste a blocker on the kicker..in this situation, the kicker apparently is a Standford commitment. The reason the coach chose to illegally "waste" the blocker was simply to injure /knock out the player. there are other videos of the one kid coming forward to hit other blockers as well on different kickoffs. So it might be the kid not the coach who did it. yes it would be illegal in this case cause he made it only 3.5 yds before getting lit up. I have no problem with a kicker getting blocked when the situation is right. on any return the kicker is fare game when he comes forward to be involved in a play. now i would not assign a player to a kicker however. waste of time. most really kickers are pussys any way.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 1, 2008 13:25:51 GMT -6
air--I agree with you that I wouldn't assign a player to block a kicker. That is what makes this particularly cheap and B.S...because their kicker also conveniently happens to be their Stanford commitment.
If that type of B.S happened ONCE..you could say it might be the kid. If it happens MORE than once (as you claim) than it is CLEARLY the coach...because it is either taught or tolerated.
And a question/comment to those who seem to rationalize this type of action with "the kicker is on the field...he could make the tackle". There are 10 other guys as well, and NONE of those were blocked or attempted to be blocked using the same technique. Why? (The answer is further evidence that this type of play is a cheap play)
|
|
|
Post by towtheline on Nov 1, 2008 13:26:30 GMT -6
That play is just as legal as this one
|
|
|
Post by airman on Nov 1, 2008 13:36:02 GMT -6
air--I agree with you that I wouldn't assign a player to block a kicker. That is what makes this particularly cheap and B.S...because their kicker also conveniently happens to be their Stanford commitment. If that type of B.S happened ONCE..you could say it might be the kid. If it happens MORE than once (as you claim) than it is CLEARLY the coach...because it is either taught or tolerated. And a question/comment to those who seem to rationalize this type of action with "the kicker is on the field...he could make the tackle". There are 10 other guys as well, and NONE of those were blocked or attempted to be blocked using the same technique. Why? (The answer is further evidence that this type of play is a cheap play) he never hit the kicker in the other videos. he came forward and hit other players. i guess the kids name is gino. If the coach did do this then it is sad I will agree with you on that one.
|
|
|
Post by coachweigelt on Nov 1, 2008 14:36:48 GMT -6
That play is just as legal as this one This is not legal, and good thing he got flagged for during the vid. This can easily be unsportsman or unecessary roughness! He is totally defensless!!!
|
|
|
Post by towtheline on Nov 1, 2008 16:10:11 GMT -6
That play is just as legal as this one This is not legal, and good thing he got flagged for during the vid. This can easily be unsportsman or unecessary roughness! He is totally defensless!!!Just in case you didn't pick up on it, I was being sarcastic. But yeah, that pretty much defines defenseless
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2008 17:14:51 GMT -6
no he is on the field the whistle hadn't blown fair game I agree, what makes it dirty?
|
|
|
Post by k on Nov 1, 2008 19:33:03 GMT -6
Interesting to find that the coach who protected his kicker got suspended too.
In that case I should have been. We watched a team take out the kicker with their center man up front on every kick off for every game they played before us.
We put our 6'2'' 260 pound beast of a left tackle and our 6' 230 pound beast of an inside linebacker flanking our 6'4'' 260 pound kicker/right tackle and put him on the grass with three people on the first kickoff. They didn't do it again... Guess I shoulda been suspended for protecting the kicker.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 1, 2008 20:25:13 GMT -6
K--- I don't think so at all. If it was my boy you were protecting in that case, I would be taking you to dinner. Key word being PROTECTING...
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Nov 1, 2008 20:38:52 GMT -6
It's a cheap shot without question and if you believe that sort of of play belongs in high school football then you have no conception of what the game should be about at that level- that kind of play is way across the line when it comes to ethics that should be taught, modeled and demanded.
|
|
|
Post by stonewalljackson on Nov 1, 2008 22:11:38 GMT -6
If I was the coach of that player, he would never see the field again.
|
|
|
Post by backsiderush on Nov 1, 2008 22:21:16 GMT -6
I am with TOG!!!!!!!!!!!!! You got a helmet and pads and you are supposed to make a tackle if you are on the field therefore LIGHT HIS ASS UP PERIOD. IT is also apparent that the KOR team has a numbering system that guy was responsible for #1
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Nov 1, 2008 23:35:45 GMT -6
Stonewall, the coach ordered the hit, as to why we may never know. The kicker is one of the best athletes to come out of Idaho in the last 5 years. This kid is legit.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 1, 2008 23:46:48 GMT -6
I am with TOG!!!!!!!!!!!!! You got a helmet and pads and you are supposed to make a tackle if you are on the field therefore LIGHT HIS {censored} UP PERIOD. IT is also apparent that the KOR team has a numbering system that guy was responsible for #1 I ask you then..why didn't any of the other players attack their men in a similar manner? ANSWER : because it is not advantageous to block a member of the KO team that early in the play...UNLESS that member of the team is defenseless so that the hit will knock him out of the play at best, and at worst cause injury.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Nov 2, 2008 8:12:29 GMT -6
The biggest problem I have with it is that this kind of crap encourages teams to retaliate, which is EXACTLY what happened in this case.
You have adult coaches, who are supposed to know better, using their players to prove whose balls are bigger. Not good, IMO...
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 2, 2008 8:31:05 GMT -6
IANSWER : because it is not advantageous to block a member of the KO team that early in the play.... we attack on kor it creates vertical seams and lane discipline issues
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 2, 2008 9:03:42 GMT -6
tog--do you have any video of that? I am pretty certain your frontline attacks are done quite differently than that one player did to the kicker...
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 2, 2008 9:10:09 GMT -6
tog--do you have any video of that? I am pretty certain your frontline attacks are done quite differently than that one player did to the kicker... we try to run up on them some kids are more aggresive about it than others for sure each week we change up the number of the front line we also have a sniper position that is assigned to earhole their best bullet guy
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 2, 2008 9:31:24 GMT -6
hmmm..interesting thoughts. Big difference running up on someone looking downfield vs someone looking at the ball...
My concern would be that using that technique creates the seam too early in the process, allowing the horizontal lane integrity to be regained. I am intrigued a bit by the creation of the vertical seams, but it does seem like it is pretty easy to avoid someone closing in at you as you close in on them full speed...
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 2, 2008 9:33:54 GMT -6
some are better at it than others
|
|