Round 2: Oneida @ Hampton

[crow]

2 minutes ago, Uknolil said:

You must be mentally ill 

Account is 23 minutes old with 1 post as I type this. Obviously a pot stirrer, likely not even an Oneida fan. 

[Tootie]

It’s on their website now. Just watched it.  Block looked legal he was in front of the defender. I’m not a ref though.  Definitely didn’t deserve a flag.

[Uknolil]

2 minutes ago, crow said:

Account is 23 minutes old with 1 post as I type this. Obviously a pot stirrer, likely not even an Oneida fan. 

No worries here 

[uknoit2]

13 minutes ago, crow said:

I'll go look, explanation I got wasn't block in the back but the new blind side block rule which I think is a joke. It's cost us a TD and several good punt returns this year alone. I'll see if I can find it. 

Sorry you couldn't find it...the other news station had nothing hardly on game...it wasn't a block in the back call

[uknoit2]

4 minutes ago, crow said:

Account is 23 minutes old with 1 post as I type this. Obviously a pot stirrer, likely not even an Oneida fan. 

 

2 minutes ago, Tootie said:

It’s on their website now. Just watched it.  Block looked legal he was in front of the defender. I’m not a ref though.  Definitely didn’t deserve a flag.

Can you post link for crow?

[Tootie]

I’ll see

[Tootie]

https://wcyb.com/sports/friday-night-huddle/friday-night-huddle-week-13-highlights

 

[Devilsx5]

1 hour ago, OmahaOmaha said:

You must not know anything about Oneida football. They will for sure not get beat by 50. I can promise that. 

He is an Elizabethton troll dont mind him 

[uknoit2]

6 minutes ago, Tootie said:

https://wcyb.com/sports/friday-night-huddle/friday-night-huddle-week-13-highlights

 

I'll see if it comes up

[Tootie]

I hope it works. I’m computer illiterate 

[crow]

I been watching it. Ok a couple of things. 1. It was an unnecessary block, kid was going to the house. 2. Clearly not a block in the back. 3. This is where I draw fire, it does meet the criteria of an illegal blind side or "crack back" block and yes that is a penalty. The offensive player was moving towards the ball carrier and hit the defender. 4. I in no way agree with this rule, I think it's a bad rule that detracts from the game, especially special teams. This is the same rule that has caused college and nfl players to start "guardian" with their hands straight up instead of blocking in open field situations. I think the rule is garbage but as the rule stands that seems to be a penalty. Be clear I do not think that rule should exist and personally I find nothing wrong with a block like that. 

[uknoit2]

7 minutes ago, crow said:

I been watching it. Ok a couple of things. 1. It was an unnecessary block, kid was going to the house. 2. Clearly not a block in the back. 3. This is where I draw fire, it does meet the criteria of an illegal blind side or "crack back" block and yes that is a penalty. The offensive player was moving towards the ball carrier and hit the defender. 4. I in no way agree with this rule, I think it's a bad rule that detracts from the game, especially special teams. This is the same rule that has caused college and nfl players to start "guardian" with their hands straight up instead of blocking in open field situations. I think the rule is garbage but as the rule stands that seems to be a penalty. Be clear I do not think that rule should exist and personally I find nothing wrong with a block like that. 

Had nothing to do with aiding the TD either. Defender should have been ignored, but it appears much of his body was in front of Defender...film may be clearer but that flag was ridiculous at that point. I agree with your post