Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42587
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. It probably literally fit either definition, maybe not crown of helmet.

    The rules are intended to objectively define an element of intent to make "forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."  But intent doesn't strictly come into it.

    Still, I think some sort of discretion should exist to rule that the hit didn't exhibit that type of forcible contact and thus did not constitute targeting.

     

  2. Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

    Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

    Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

    • Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.

    • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.

    • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

    Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

    • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield.

    • A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

    • A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.

    • A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not ha

  3. 2 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

    I’m betting the D is underperforming due to locker room issues. At least that’s my hunch. 

    Nah, it's pretty clear they are very poorly schemed/taught and integrated with the rest of the D.

    They don't know what they're doing, so they're playing tentative, which partly explains the tackling.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. 12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

    I agree. It’s why they say you don’t wanna watch legislation or sausage being made.   

    I’ve never practiced criminal law and know nothing about it.  I am unclear about that whole three count indictment being followed by the two count indictment.  If the original indictment contained three counts, with the the grand jury not finding count one, but blessing count two and three, would that mean that the second and third counts were valid, and therefore did not need a redo?

    Because one could argue that the first indictment was legit as far as the two counts the grand jury did find, with the crazy second indictment being brought after speaking to only two grand jury members being a superfluous moot process.  And if two of the three counts were true-billed by the grand jury before the staff of limitations, then you would have six more months.

    Normally, I could assume the fact that Halligan made the effort to get a second indictment was proof that the first indictment was rendered invalid when one of the three counts was not true billed.   But she is such an inexperienced incompetent dumb fuck, that assumption would be a mistake.

    IMG_5494.gif.b33ba7cfae8d06fa86e191ff541e8cc4.gif

    if Halligan’s alleged fourth and fifth amendment violations (using privileged evidence between Comey and his attorney that was illegally put before the grand jury - and improperly telling the grand jury that it was up to Comey to give testimony about his innocence) are found to have occurred, then the first indictment is null for different reasons, and potentially not a legitimate indictment within the statute of limitations for that separate reason - regardless of whether the entire grand jury read the second indictment and voted.

    Finally, if Miss Colorado is not a duly appointed interim attorney general, she had no authority to sign the indictment, or any indictment, and that nullity would also seem to prevent the six extra months provision. 

    I admit to being fascinated by all of this.

    It's pretty formalistic. But, hey, it's law, and criminal law at that.

    The evidence really seems to be that they voted true on two of the three counts.  The two that are the subject of the current indictment.

    But they never saw or actually voted on the two-count indictment, which was the one returned to the court to commence the case.

    I'd really like to see more of the vindictive prosecution evidence come to light before anything gets dismissed.

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

    Twice, look at the bold language in the quote.  Seems to indicate that the six month add-on would not apply in this situation, as if the indictment was not proper in the first place and a nullity, that means no prior indictment was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.  Which would seem to prohibit the filing of a new indictment within six months of the court finding this one not being a true bill in the first place within the statute of limitations.
     

    The fact that the many criminal practitioner legal commentators have focused on the statute of limitations having being passed - and none of them mentioning an extra six extra months - suggests to me that the additional six months is not an option here. Dunno. 

    I know, there's a question there.  

    I've seen it discussed a few times, I don't think it's clear.

  6. 4 minutes ago, Drew said:

    Which is why all these “gotcha” quotes on me are silly.  
     

    he makes great plays off script. He has a great command of the pocket.  
     

    he still make bad throws way too often. And it needs to be fixed next year or there will be periods of stagnant offense. 

    You're right in a sense.

    But, he is proving to be a very, very good college QB, the last few games.

    There really aren't many that have looked better.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  7. Just now, Huckleberry said:

    Uh, that was not a good deep ball. Completely on the wrong side of the receiver, if he puts that to the inside it's a touchdown.

    Yeah, the deep busted coverages are letting WR field these like an outfielder.

    Not repeatable for the most part against better D.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 1 minute ago, Coelenterate Fuccboi said:

    I disagree, think it’s removed headhunting, except for a few boneheaded players. If concussions have remained steady, it’s because they’re more closely monitoring and calling out t what it is.

    I tend to agree.

    But, the rules still encompass some pretty legit football hits that don't account for height differential, like that one.

  9. 1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

    I'm not criticizing his overall performance. I'm saying he doesn't know how to catch with his hands. He never does it. 

    I hear ya.  I think he did earlier, with maybe not ideal passes, leading to dropsy yips.

  10. 1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

    That's the only way he knows how to catch. Apparently, we haven't been able to teach him. I honestly wonder if we try. It is the only thing really holding him back. 

    I think he's just kind of mindfucked.

    But getting over it.

    I think if earlier OL play had let Arch Arch better, the WR connection and performance would have been better. 

    Like it's getting now.

  11. Just now, TexArcher said:

    Baxter showed flashes as a freshman and he was a megaprospect.  There were reasons to be excited to get him back from injury.

    Our run blocking continues to be shit.  I think that is more to blame than individual regression by guys like Wisner, who was very good last year.

    I don't think Wisner has regressed at all.  He just gets little or no help.  Our line last year kinda sucked at run blocking too, just not as bad.

    • Hook 'Em 3
×
×
  • Create New...