Wouldn't Have Happened in the 1960's

Donate To GopherHole


Whether he did anything wrong or not, I don't think he has a case.

MSHSL says ref calls are final.
If you decide to have your kid play MSHSL football, you have to abide by their rules and decisions.

The MSHSL isn't banning him from playing football anywhere else.
 

Face The Facts said:
Whether he did anything wrong or not, I don't think he has a case.

MSHSL says ref calls are final.
If you decide to have your kid play MSHSL football, you have to abide by their rules and decisions.

The MSHSL isn't banning him from playing football anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Yeah, their only hope is that it would maybe get changed in the future. It won't happen now. And even if they could appeal, I don't think they have much of a case.
 

Infractions of other high school league bylaws resulting in suspensions, such as for eligibility issues, allow for decisions to be appealed. They contend that similar due process should be afforded such determinations stemming from actions on the football field, especially when there is video.
Click to expand...

Just on the face of it I think there is an argument there. I don't know if it is successful, but allowing for an appeal process when you already do that for another things seems logical.


The outcome might be exactly the same, but I've no problem with the idea that an appeal should be allowed.
 


Word said:
Yeah, their only hope is that it would maybe get changed in the future. It won't happen now. And even if they could appeal, I don't think they have much of a case.
Click to expand...

Agree with most of the other replies that a case can be made that there should be an appeals process when a suspension is involved but even if there was an appeal process in place, I don't think it would have changed the outcome in this case based on the video.

The hit in question was a dirty cheap shot from the blind side on the QB. Impossible to tell exactly where his helmet made contact but he 100% went in high with the intent to deliver a big hit. I can absolutely understand why the ref threw the flag for targeting.
 

Did not look like a "targeting" call was warranted, or that it was a blindside hit. The QB may not have been looking, but the kid who hit him had his head in front of the QB.

I was involved in a similar play in high school, and it's bugged me for nearly 40 years. I was playing DT. It was a pass, but I didn't get to the QB. As soon as he threw the ball, I turned and took off downfield. But the pass was intercepted. It occurred to me the QB was now a potential tackler, so I spun around again and leveled him. Not only did they give me a 15-yard penalty, they took away the interception.

JTG
 

I really expected the video to show a good clean block that was an obvious bad call. After seeing the video, I think it looked like targeting as well when viewed in real time at full speed. The block was not only unnecessary in the play, IMO (the defender that intercepted the pass was already being tackled when the block happened), it was unnecessarily rough just because the kid thought he had a free hit available. If I'm his dad, I would use this as a "life isn't always fair" teaching moment. At least I hope that is what I would do.

If he really wants to play at the next level, I would be more concerned about college coaches seeing the lawsuit and not wanting to deal with that rather than knowing he was suspended for a targeting call.
 

I paused the video right at the hit and zoomed in (hopefully the attached pic works). The hit was made with the shoulder in the chest area and totally in front of the body. The NFHS definition of targeting on the actual hit is "“Taking aim with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders to initiate contact above the shoulders, which goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block or playing the ball, will be prohibited,” Under that scenario, the hit is in no way targeting because it's below the shoulders. However, the "defenseless" player definition is much more subjective in “A defenseless player is a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury.”. This might be where there's no way to argue with the ref's call. I'm not sure if a clean hit on a subjectively "defenseless" player could actually be targeting.

supposed targeting hit.jpg
 





Someone much younger and more in touch with today's high school athletic scene than me may be able to correct me on this . . . but Hudl is essentially a recruiting tool through which players, or people associated with them, post their own highlights hoping to get attention, right?

So the player, or perhaps more likely a parent, is proud of a play in which he obliterates an unsuspecting quarterback well away from the play, resulting in a penalty, and puts that on his highlight reel from that game, even though it got him kicked out. Anybody involved in football in today's climate, with our current awareness of the issues surrounding brain injuries, should know that you just can't make hits like that any more. Combine this with the earlier suspension for a "retaliatory kick", and to me the warning bells are quite loud here.
 

xyz1 said:
Someone much younger and more in touch with today's high school athletic scene than me may be able to correct me on this . . . but Hudl is essentially a recruiting tool through which players, or people associated with them, post their own highlights hoping to get attention, right?

So the player, or perhaps more likely a parent, is proud of a play in which he obliterates an unsuspecting quarterback well away from the play, resulting in a penalty, and puts that on his highlight reel from that game, even though it got him kicked out. Anybody involved in football in today's climate, with our current awareness of the issues surrounding brain injuries, should know that you just can't make hits like that any more. Combine this with the earlier suspension for a "retaliatory kick", and to me the warning bells are quite loud here.
Click to expand...

I think you're right.

But I also think if you have skill... teams will ignore all that.

I don't know if this guy does, and I agree it is a bad look, just that it also isn't a trump card.
 



Panthadad2 said:
I paused the video right at the hit and zoomed in (hopefully the attached pic works). The hit was made with the shoulder in the chest area and totally in front of the body. The NFHS definition of targeting on the actual hit is "“Taking aim with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders to initiate contact above the shoulders, which goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block or playing the ball, will be prohibited,” Under that scenario, the hit is in no way targeting because it's below the shoulders. However, the "defenseless" player definition is much more subjective in “A defenseless player is a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury.”. This might be where there's no way to argue with the ref's call. I'm not sure if a clean hit on a subjectively "defenseless" player could actually be targeting.

View attachment 5838
Click to expand...

Although that freeze frame would support the parents view of what happened it would be impossible to use an angle like that to overturn something like this even if there was a review process. We have seen with college games where one angle can make a play look like targeting and another can make it look clean. And that is with high quality cameras from multiple angles.

In real time the player goes in high and hard on a defenseless player, 10 yards downfield from where the tackle ends up happening. Maybe it was targeting and maybe it wasn't, but it was dirty and if you are a player that has already missed time for kicking another player you have to be smart enough not to take the cheap shot.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Although that freeze frame would support the parents view of what happened it would be impossible to use an angle like that to overturn something like this even if there was a review process. We have seen with college games where one angle can make a play look like targeting and another can make it look clean. And that is with high quality cameras from multiple angles.

In real time the player goes in high and hard on a defenseless player, 10 yards downfield from where the tackle ends up happening. Maybe it was targeting and maybe it wasn't, but it was dirty and if you are a player that has already missed time for kicking another player you have to be smart enough not to take the cheap shot.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's considered a dirty hit in today's environment. To the OP's point too, that the hit is considered dirty is a very recent phenomena. That same hit would be celebrated only a few years ago. Example, wait till the #1 hit in this video:

 


Panthadad2 said:
I paused the video right at the hit and zoomed in (hopefully the attached pic works). The hit was made with the shoulder in the chest area and totally in front of the body. The NFHS definition of targeting on the actual hit is "“Taking aim with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders to initiate contact above the shoulders, which goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block or playing the ball, will be prohibited,” Under that scenario, the hit is in no way targeting because it's below the shoulders. However, the "defenseless" player definition is much more subjective in “A defenseless player is a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury.”. This might be where there's no way to argue with the ref's call. I'm not sure if a clean hit on a subjectively "defenseless" player could actually be targeting.

View attachment 5838
Click to expand...

This is not targeting. By NFHS rules it is an Illegal Blind Side block. Blind side blocks must be initiated with first contact being with open hands. Targeting and Illegal Blind Side Blocks do not carry an automatic ejection. However, if the play is deemed Unnecessary, Flagrant, and involving a defenseless player, an ejection will likely take place and be supported.
 



Come on guy's it is obvious!

rnocrgp.png
 

The issue purely is about a perceived/argued inconsistency within the MSHSL’s rules on allowing for appeals, nothing to do with what took place or if the call was valid.

I think the argument has merit, but won’t be surprised by the judge ruling either way on the injunction.

If the injunction isn’t granted, he’s probably done playing football this year. And they probably drop the case.

They’re playing for the injunction. I don’t think they truly care about being able to have an official appeal hearing with the MSHSL, which would likely not result in a reversal anyway.
 
Last edited:

MaxyJR1 said:
This is not targeting. By NFHS rules it is an Illegal Blind Side block. Blind side blocks must be initiated with first contact being with open hands. Targeting and Illegal Blind Side Blocks do not carry an automatic ejection. However, if the play is deemed Unnecessary, Flagrant, and involving a defenseless player, an ejection will likely take place and be supported.
Click to expand...
I know a high school ref and he said exactly the same thing as you. Not targeting necessarily but for sure a blind side block and likely flagrant. Thus the ejection. The kid has no case.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Gophers_4life said:
The issue purely is about a perceived/argued inconsistency within the MSHSL’s rules on allowing for appeals, nothing to do with what took place or if the call was valid.
Click to expand...

I don't think they'd be fighting this if it wasn't their son being kicked out of the playoffs. They don't care about the rule, they just want their son to play and get the best college football offer. It's a very selfish fight. The MSHSL can't be viewing appeals on in-game plays. They don't have the resources to do that in a timely manner. Even the NCAA and NFL struggle with replay at times.
 

I’d feel bad for him if it was a clean hit (it wasn’t)
Or if he was generally a clean player (he isn’t)
Or if it was his first offense that required ejection (it isn’t)

Funny how their statements dismiss his first ejection as “retaliation”
He straight up kicked a kid during the play.
 

Word said:
I don't think they'd be fighting this if it wasn't their son being kicked out of the playoffs. They don't care about the rule, they just want their son to play and get the best college football offer. It's a very selfish fight. The MSHSL can't be viewing appeals on in-game plays. They don't have the resources to do that in a timely manner. Even the NCAA and NFL struggle with replay at times.
Click to expand...

They say the suspension will scare colleges away. Ironically the parents suing people will probably scare recruiters away more than anything.
 

If you are trying to get recruited, and your parents are already suing people based on your career, that's an easy distraction to step aside from.
 

In the old school that was a clean hit. He was hit below the shoulders and any argument that the runner was down goes back to play to the whistle.
 

Word said:
I don't think they'd be fighting this if it wasn't their son being kicked out of the playoffs. They don't care about the rule, they just want their son to play and get the best college football offer. It's a very selfish fight. The MSHSL can't be viewing appeals on in-game plays. They don't have the resources to do that in a timely manner. Even the NCAA and NFL struggle with replay at times.
Click to expand...

I think you hit it on the head. They’re going for the injunction, knowing full well that it will take time to make it to trial, and by that time the games will be done. He’ll have gotten to play, which is what they actually care about.
 

To me that looks like it should be a completely clean hit. Might violate some of the newer rules but there's nothing "dirty" about it. The position of the player, the fact that it was 10 yards downfield, or the fact that the QB wasn't expecting the hit shouldn't matter. This would have been better resolved by some pushing and shoving and maybe a small fight and then offsetting penalties to both teams.

But it's entirely up to the league to determine the rules and punishments for breaking the rules. As long as they aren't discriminating against any particular group of players, they can do whatever they want. If I were a college coach I'd be hesitant to give a scholarship to someone whose parents are way too involved. The suspension I could more easily overlook.
 

GoGophersUMN said:
To me that looks like it should be a completely clean hit. Might violate some of the newer rules but there's nothing "dirty" about it. The position of the player, the fact that it was 10 yards downfield, or the fact that the QB wasn't expecting the hit shouldn't matter. This would have been better resolved by some pushing and shoving and maybe a small fight and then offsetting penalties to both teams.

But it's entirely up to the league to determine the rules and punishments for breaking the rules. As long as they aren't discriminating against any particular group of players, they can do whatever they want. If I were a college coach I'd be hesitant to give a scholarship to someone whose parents are way too involved. The suspension I could more easily overlook.
Click to expand...

This is where old school and new school are not going to see eye to eye. Old school will look at that play and see nothing wrong with it, whereas new school will be glad to see football making an effort to take hits like that out of the game. I think the NFL has gone way too far in their efforts to protect to the QB but as I have already stated I think this particular play was a cheap shot and totally unnecessary.

For those that have watched the hudl video I have another rules question. There are back to back clips starting at 0:50 where he is a lead blocker and just flat out tackles the defensive player. How could the ref not call holding on those? The first one is the worst of the two as you can clearly see his arms wrapped around the defensive player and the play in question ends in a TD.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom