JMU Post-Game Thoughts & Discussion

[JMB]

What ever happened to that sports writer who had JMU #1 all year. Did we change his mind yet?

Are you talking the Hero Sports guy? He actually usually does a pretty good job explaining his position.

[Stary2k11]

Are you talking the Hero Sports guy? He actually usually does a pretty good job explaining his position.

Even if he has to reach into the far depths of statistics to find something that supports his position. I would say the same thing if this same scenario played out for another team.

[ZHerd]

As far as conservative play calling and Trey running a bazillion times: I have no problem with running Trey so much since it mostly worked well but didn’t care for the prevent mode mindset. Trey is a freshman in a big game and running him a lot was the safest way to win even though I think we could have won by more. A couple years from now Trey should be able to see the field well enough to take over games with his arm

[Bisonator98]

The Dukes dynasty continues, they have now combined with NDSU to win the last 9 national championships.

[IndyBison]

Indy I really appreciate your insights always and I have no basis for arguing rules. I will take issue with that defender being focused on something other than 75. He was looking right into those numbers and I have a hard time imaging he could see anything else since they were right at his eye level. He surely saw that contact coming.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

75's block on the fake reverse was legal. We are talking about the block at the 5 on the fake FG. I can't see the number of the blocker.

Here is the definition of a blindside block (2-3-7)

A blindside block is an open field block against an opponent that is initiated from outside the opponent's field of vision, or otherwise in such a manner that the opponent cannot reasonably defend himself against the block.

This definitely meets that definition. Rule 9-1-18 indicates when this type of block is illegal. You could argue if it was forcible contact but I feel it definitely was.

No player shall deliver a blindside block by attacking an opponent with forcible contact. Exceptions (1) the runner; (2) a receiver in the act of attempting to make a catch.

The physical location of the bodies are never mentioned. This more commonly happens when two players are running in different directions after a change of possession or a scramble play by someone downfield coming back to block. You can still legally block him. To use simple terms you can't blow him up.

These types of hits can be very dangerous. Going forcibly to the ground when you aren't expecting it you don't get a chance to brace yourself. Concussions are very common on those hits. I had a player get blindsided by a receiver coming back to block on a quarterback scramble. It was legal at the time but looked brutal. The player was down for a couple minutes. Fortunately medical staff on the sideline noticed something was seriously wrong and they got him to the hospital. He was diagnosed with a lacerated spleen. If they hadn't noticed it in time he could have died. That play has impacted me.

Shield blocks (think screen in basketball) or a good push with the hands takes the defender out of the play when he doesn't see it coming. He may even still go to the ground but not as violently. I understand if you don't like the rule but I think it was a very good and overdue change. HS has had it for 3-4 years and NFL has had a version for a couple years. They made an odd change to it this year I don't necessarily agree with but they all exist for the same reason.

This is a good example from several years ago. This video shows how this can be very generous. This defender was down for several minutes. I was surprised they flagged it because this wasn't considered illegal then. This was the year before targeting so that wasn't even a factor. They knew they wanted to get rid of these hours but weren't sure how to write the rule. They started with targeting but realized body blows in these instances were also dangerous.

https://youtu.be/KH75LwUtqI0


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[GreenfieldBison]

75's block on the fake reverse was legal. We are talking about the block at the 5 on the fake FG. I can't see the number of the blocker.

Here is the definition of a blindside block (2-3-7)

A blindside block is an open field block against an opponent that is initiated from outside the opponent's field of vision, or otherwise in such a manner that the opponent cannot reasonably defend himself against the block.

This definitely meets that definition. Rule 9-1-18 indicates when this type of block is illegal. You could argue if it was forcible contact but I feel it definitely was.

No player shall deliver a blindside block by attacking an opponent with forcible contact. Exceptions (1) the runner; (2) a receiver in the act of attempting to make a catch.

The physical location of the bodies are never mentioned. This more commonly happens when two players are running in different directions after a change of possession or a scramble play by someone downfield coming back to block. You can still legally block him. To use simple terms you can't blow him up.

These types of hits can be very dangerous. Going forcibly to the ground when you aren't expecting it you don't get a chance to brace yourself. Concussions are very common on those hits. I had a player get blindsided by a receiver coming back to block on a quarterback scramble. It was legal at the time but looked brutal. The player was down for a couple minutes. Fortunately medical staff on the sideline noticed something was seriously wrong and they got him to the hospital. He was diagnosed with a lacerated spleen. If they hadn't noticed it in time he could have died. That play has impacted me.

Shield blocks (think screen in basketball) or a good push with the hands takes the defender out of the play when he doesn't see it coming. He may even still go to the ground but not as violently. I understand if you don't like the rule but I think it was a very good and overdue change. HS has had it for 3-4 years and NFL has had a version for a couple years. They made an odd change to it this year I don't necessarily agree with but they all exist for the same reason.

This is a good example from several years ago. This video shows how this can be very generous. This defender was down for several minutes. I was surprised they flagged it because this wasn't considered illegal then. This was the year before targeting so that wasn't even a factor. They knew they wanted to get rid of these hours but weren't sure how to write the rule. They started with targeting but realized body blows in these instances were also dangerous.

https://youtu.be/KH75LwUtqI0


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Yes I misunderstood which one you were talking about. Agree that 54 got blown up on the play in question. Leave it to you whether it should have been flagged or not.

[CivilBison96]

I appreciate that haircut. All I can grow is the exact opposite of it.

And here I thought that was you in your avatar picture. I am in the same boat as you in being able to sport that hairstyle.....

[Vet70]

I found it interesting that JMU had only about 3 minutes more in TOP but they ran 77 plays to our 55. Nothing like killing the clock.

[El_Chapo]

The last play is team football. I would have tried to score a touchdown instead of giving myself up after the clock hit zero.

he should've at least ran the clock out and had the rushing the field.

OR He should've freakin HOUSED it while fans rush the field ala Stanford band, would've been epic on TV!

[aces1180]

Did anyone catch the announcers say it was our first game on grass yesterday? Not so much, but good effort to add in some “facts”.