The block by Kenny Bell.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

:huh: :facepalm: That's your argument...................the angle of those pictures are terrible.............

 

[SandhillshuskerW]

Sorry for the delay guys...I've been busy with church and family activities all day today.

So here is the breakdown of the helmet-to-helmet contact. In the first two photos of the top row, I've drawn a veritcal line to show where Bell's head is at just before impact. They are even in the first shot, but his head is out in front in the second screeshot. Bell's helmet is LEADING the shoulder. It's out in front and makes contact with Smith first.

You can clearly see that Smith's head turns to the left just before the impact is made with Bell's shoulder both in the side view angle AND the endzone angle. By rule, this type of hit is illegal.

The screenshot that you guys keep posting is AFTER Bell's shoulder hits Smith. His helmet hit Smith FIRST.

Unnecessary roughness. Offense #80. 15 yards from the spot of the foul. First down.

The angle that your pictures show from is a terrible angle. If you combine your photos with the other ones also posted you can clearly see that Bell is leading with his shoulder and his head is going to the right trying to avoid having a helmet to helmet. Your photos are not even close to being from the side where there is the best view of the situation. I'm not attacking you personally as I have seen some people on here, I'm simply stating the facts. The fact is, it was a solid hit that looked a lot worse than it actually was because of the fact that Smith didn't see it coming and he just got lit up. If you combine your pictures with the one that Landlord posted earlier, you can clearly see that there was no helmet to helmet contact at all. Bell lead with his shoulder and Smith wasn't looking which made it an unfortunate circumstance for him.

So what you're saying is that between the time of the third column of screenshots that I posted and the pic that Landlord posted, Kenny Bell pulled his head back to the right to avoid helmet-to-helmet contact?

You guys might be on to something with the whole Superhuman Kenny Bell thing...

As I already stated, your pictures are from a terrible angle and most of Smith's shoulder pads block the view of Kenny's head in your third shot. I do have to say that in the second column you can clearly see that he is starting to move his helmet to the right. I can't see how you can't see that Landlords picture was pretty much simultaneous with your pictures. The play didn't last that long. It's ok to admit when you're wrong, I just think you are too far in to this that you can't admit it. Even when you did see the pictures from a better angle.

 

[Landlord]

The screenshot that you guys keep posting is AFTER Bell's shoulder hits Smith.

You've been proven wrong. Literally proven. Then you resort with a series of snapshots from a worse angle of vision, draw lines that aren't even in the right spots and spout off "his head turns to the left" garbage. Which part of his head?

We aren't on to something with Kenny Bell being superhuman. We're on to something with knowing the reality of the situation. Yes, Kenny's helmet is further to the left in the pictures you posted. But, and I do not possibly see how you can not understand this, those pictures are taken from behind the play, not at a 90 degree angle to it; that does not translate into Kenny's helmet being closer to the defender than his shoulder.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

You guys need to honestly ask yourselves this question...

How does Smith's head move to the left before the force of Bell's shoulder hits him in the chest if there's no helmet-to-helmet contact?

I suppose you'll tell me that Smith moved his head on his own and that the camera angle is bad. The proof is in those screenshots. There's not denying that Smith's head moved to the left BEFORE Bell's shoulder impacted his chest.

Show me a better angle to prove to me that Bell did NOT lead with his head.

 

[SandhillshuskerW]

Ok, I don't have the energy any more. I am going to read your name on the board and agree that there is NothingToSeeHere. You just have to admit that it's hard to argue with someone that won't listen to anyone else's opinion and believe what their eyes tell them when they see a better angle of the situation. I will leave the arguing with you to the rest of the board and I will hope that you some day admit to yourself, if not to others, that you are wrong about this situation. Have a great day!

 

[Landlord]

You guys need to honestly ask yourselves this question...

How does Smith's head move to the left before the force of Bell's shoulder hits him in the chest if there's no helmet-to-helmet contact?

Physics.

Your screenshots prove nothing. Your conclusions from them are entirely speculative. Also, elementary statements such as "his head moves to the left" don't actually mean anything. Which part of his head? The top? The neck? The front? The Back? Which direction is left in a 3-dimensional space? You realize the skull is connected by a joint, right? So does his head rotate horizontally? Vertically? Somewhere in the middle? If I took that by it's literal definition it would mean that his entire skull shifted an indeterminate amount away from its previous location on top of his spinal column, which of course we know is impossible without him being dead and without defying the laws of physics.

 

[zoogs]

Are we still suggesting that Kenny should have lowered his helmet a foot or two to spear the guy in the chest and/or snap his own neck?

Bell made a great block, led with the shoulder, no launching and no headhunting. The collision ended up upending the guy because he didn't keep his head turned around, didn't have a sense of what was going on upfield in the direction he was charging, and careened straight into the blocker at full speed.

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

You guys need to honestly ask yourselves this question...

How does Smith's head move to the left before the force of Bell's shoulder hits him in the chest if there's no helmet-to-helmet contact?

Physics.

Your screenshots prove nothing. Your conclusions from them are entirely speculative. Also, elementary statements such as "his head moves to the left" don't actually mean anything. Which part of his head? The top? The neck? The front? The Back? Which direction is left in a 3-dimensional space? You realize the skull is connected by a joint, right? So does his head rotate horizontally? Vertically? Somewhere in the middle? If I took that by it's literal definition it would mean that his entire skull shifted an indeterminate amount away from its previous location on top of his spinal column, which of course we know is impossible without him being dead and without defying the laws of physics.

Well, the front of his head moved up and the back of his head moved down while his nose caved in and his ears fell off. They all moved in different directions which is clear from the pictures...

pfffffffft...you guys are grasping at straws...3-dimensional space...

Try this...stand up straight...keep your shoulders parallel with a wall in front of you. Now...move your head to the left...and now to the right...voila...your head moves in both directions and you're not dead.

 

[Landlord]

zoogs, at what point does this end --____----

 

[huKSer]

Lost in all the bickering is the fact that the call was "unnecessary roughness", not helmet-to-helmet contact or defenseless player. No matter how much we disapprove, the official rulebook does NOT define the term "unnecessary roughness". Everyone is free to download the rulebook and read it for themselves if they don't believe me. The term is open to the interpretation of the refs on the field. That's it. It's not black and white. Until the rules are modified with a precise definition, the NCAA is putting the final interpretation on any given play in the hands of the refs on the field. We may strongly disagree with the ref's interpretation, but he isn't technically wrong by the rulebook.

Shouldn't Wisconsin have been called for this every touchdown after the 2nd half?

 

[huKSer]

You guys need to honestly ask yourselves this question...

How does Smith's head move to the left before the force of Bell's shoulder hits him in the chest if there's no helmet-to-helmet contact?

I suppose you'll tell me that Smith moved his head on his own and that the camera angle is bad. The proof is in those screenshots. There's not denying that Smith's head moved to the left BEFORE Bell's shoulder impacted his chest.

Show me a better angle to prove to me that Bell did NOT lead with his head.

Isn't there a shot of the grassy knoll somewhere?

 

[huKSer]

Sorry for the delay guys...I've been busy with church and family activities all day today.

So here is the breakdown of the helmet-to-helmet contact. In the first two photos of the top row, I've drawn a veritcal line to show where Bell's head is at just before impact. They are even in the first shot, but his head is out in front in the second screeshot. Bell's helmet is LEADING the shoulder. It's out in front and makes contact with Smith first.

You can clearly see that Smith's head turns to the left just before the impact is made with Bell's shoulder both in the side view angle AND the endzone angle. By rule, this type of hit is illegal.

The screenshot that you guys keep posting is AFTER Bell's shoulder hits Smith. His helmet hit Smith FIRST.

Unnecessary roughness. Offense #80. 15 yards from the spot of the foul. First down.

I thank you for providing conclusive evidence that you are wrong. Top row middle column, the two parallel lines on the vic's helmet aim to the right of the 0 on his jersey. If Bell hit helmet to helmet, the two parallel lines would move more to his right shoulder, but instead the lines point towards the 0 on his jersey. By the way I TEACH PHYSICS

 

[JTrain]

The issue of helmet contact is totally irrelevant to the official call of "unnecessary roughness"

Please read post 176 above. I hate to let facts get in the way of great pissing match. I love that this has dragged on for four pages discussing physics, photographic evidence, posters' football experiece, etc., all of which is entirely irrelevant to the call on the field. The ref that threw the flag deemed the amount of "roughness" to be "unnecessary" to accomplishing the result of the play. That's it and that's all. We may say that we would interpret the rule differently. That's fine. But until the NCAA defines the rule clearly, it is up to the refs to judge what "unnecessary roughness" means.

 

[JTrain]

SECTION 1. Personal Fouls

All fouls in this section (unless noted) and any other acts of unnecessary

roughness are personal fouls.

This is the entire explanation in the rulebook. This leaves a massive gray area for the refs to interpret what the term means.

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

Sorry for the delay guys...I've been busy with church and family activities all day today.

So here is the breakdown of the helmet-to-helmet contact. In the first two photos of the top row, I've drawn a veritcal line to show where Bell's head is at just before impact. They are even in the first shot, but his head is out in front in the second screeshot. Bell's helmet is LEADING the shoulder. It's out in front and makes contact with Smith first.

You can clearly see that Smith's head turns to the left just before the impact is made with Bell's shoulder both in the side view angle AND the endzone angle. By rule, this type of hit is illegal.

The screenshot that you guys keep posting is AFTER Bell's shoulder hits Smith. His helmet hit Smith FIRST.

Unnecessary roughness. Offense #80. 15 yards from the spot of the foul. First down.

I thank you for providing conclusive evidence that you are wrong. Top row middle column, the two parallel lines on the vic's helmet aim to the right of the 0 on his jersey. If Bell hit helmet to helmet, the two parallel lines would move more to his right shoulder, but instead the lines point towards the 0 on his jersey. By the way I TEACH PHYSICS

So tell me, then...what is causing Smith's helmet to move to the left?

Bell's helmet catches Smith square in the jaw/mouth area of his helmet.

And JTrain...so you're saying that it was helmet-to-helmet contact, just that the call of unncessary roughness should have been called a personal foul for helmet-to-helmet contact, correct?