Wouldn't Have Happened in the 1960's

Donate To GopherHole
Jack Cichy got suspended for a similar play against the Gophers in 2015. I don't recall Wisconsin complaining about it or appealing it. While it's true that different rules may apply in high school, this type of play has been considered illegal in college and 'dirty' in the game more generally for at least 3-4 years.
 

I'll just post this and say.

The lawsuit isn't about the play exactly, it is about the lack of an appeals process.

They don't appear to be suing to discuss the facts of the play in court, the lawsuit is to get a process where they could appeal to the league and review the play and suspension it there, apparently they can't do that, but for some other events and sports it you can appeal.

To me the option to appeal seems like it should be there.
 

Some guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Basically this. And there's just no place for those kinds of hits in today's game. You want to football to survive long-term? Can't have this garbage.
 

I don't know exactly how many HS football teams there are in MN, but it has to be 200+. So there are probably around 100 games in a given week. If you allow appeals on plays that happen during a game you could easily be looking at 20+ appeals per week. That would take a lot of time and man hours.

Plus if you do it for football, why not basketball and hockey as well? And if you do it for boys hockey then you pretty much have to do it for girls hockey. Ditto for boys/girls basketball. Surely all the other sports would chime in as well.

MSHSL is already stretched pretty thin. They don't have the resources to facilitate an appeals process. IMO this would not be a good thing. Just go with the calls on the field. Sometimes refs make bad calls, deal with it.
 

theTurning said:
Basically this. And there's just no place for those kinds of hits in today's game. You want to football to survive long-term? Can't have this garbage.
Click to expand...

Hits like this aren't killing football. Blame the NFL and NCAA for turning a complete blind freakin' eye to spearing for most of the last several decades. The leagues glorified something that was never legal, and then were surprised when people got up in arms over injuries.

The only thing wrong with the play in question is that the blocker didn't initiate contact with his hands. I'm guessing that's a relatively recent rule change, and it makes sense.

Lombardi said, "Football is not a contact sport. Dancing is a contact sport. Football is a violent sport."

It is. And players are responsible for keeping their "head on a swivel," as we used to say, for their own protection.

JTG
 


rockford said:
Hits like this aren't killing football. Blame the NFL and NCAA for turning a complete blind freakin' eye to spearing for most of the last several decades. The leagues glorified something that was never legal, and then were surprised when people got up in arms over injuries.

The only thing wrong with the play in question is that the blocker didn't initiate contact with his hands. I'm guessing that's a relatively recent rule change, and it makes sense.

Lombardi said, "Football is not a contact sport. Dancing is a contact sport. Football is a violent sport."

It is. And players are responsible for keeping their "head on a swivel," as we used to say, for their own protection.
Click to expand...

Hits like this are absolutely an issue with the health of the game. Parents and players are now fully aware of the dangers of CTE. That hit was completely unnecessary and has no place in today's game, especially at the high school level.

You're quoting a man who's been dead for 50 years. The game evolves. One of the best aspects of football is that it's extremely progressive.
 

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...

HUDL is a recruiting tool for HS players to get video of themselves out to colleges. Coaches can also send video to colleges to help in the recruiting process.
It's main use though is by HS for scouting purposes, both of opponent and self, as teams put their game video online and then exchange it with upcoming opponents. It is used throughout MN and is pretty close to a required service for all teams in MN to use.

As far as the play in question and suspension. 5 years ago that hit is a non-issue. But with the increased focus on safety and getting unnecessary hits removed from the game, today that hit is illegal and was rightfully flagged for either targeting or hitting a defenseless player. Was a good call by the official. Had the kid not had an earlier suspension he would be looking at missing 1 game for that play. Guessing no appeal would be happening if that were the case.
 

In response to theTurning:

Styles of play may "evolve," but the nature of the game hasn't changed.

JTG
 

rockford said:
In response to theTurning:

Styles of play may "evolve," but the nature of the game hasn't changed.

JTG
Click to expand...

That is true, but the nature of the game is not to destroy people.
The nature of the game is still about blocking, to help your team score more points than the other, and tackling, to prevent the other team from scoring more points than you.
That "block" did nothing to help his team score and was only done to inflict harm on an opponent. That hit does not fit in the game today.
 



A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I'll just post this and say.

The lawsuit isn't about the play exactly, it is about the lack of an appeals process.

They don't appear to be suing to discuss the facts of the play in court, the lawsuit is to get a process where they could appeal to the league and review the play and suspension it there, apparently they can't do that, but for some other events and sports it you can appeal.

To me the option to appeal seems like it should be there.
Click to expand...

True ... but think about it a little deeper than that.

Do they actually want to have an appeal hearing with the MSHSL?? They probably wouldn't get the suspension overturned, is my guess.

What they actually want is for the judge to give them an injunction on the suspension, until the case can go through the legal system, which will probably be well after the season is done. That effectively nullifies the suspension, which is what they actually want.
 

Gophers_4life said:
True ... but think about it a little deeper than that.

Do they actually want to have an appeal hearing with the MSHSL?? They probably wouldn't get the suspension overturned, is my guess.

What they actually want is for the judge to give them an injunction on the suspension, until the case can go through the legal system, which will probably be well after the season is done. That effectively nullifies the suspension, which is what they actually want.
Click to expand...

Correct. This is basically the high school version of Ezekiel Elliott's ordeal from a year or two ago. Delay it for as long as you can, with the hope being that by the time you have to sit out the games are less meaningful and/or you can negotiate a reduced suspension. Little over the top for high school football, but not surprised someone is trying it
 

I would like to hear the legal argument for why the MSHSL won't implement an appeals process. Maybe it's as simple as "we just can't afford the resources it would take to go through all the ones that would come in". And to force that, would probably require it to go to trial.

But I don't think it's fair to give them the injunction. But if you don't, they'll probably drop the suit. Why waste money, when you don't actually care if the MSHSL has an appeals process for this type of suspension?
 

He is suing so he can get an appeal, and an appeal process in place. He may get the appeal, but I think he will still lose.

Side note: I got in on some garbage time my freshman year playing defensive end (at 135 lbs. :D ). Their QB just threw a pick and our guy ran it back quite a ways. We were all jogging down field and even though we were about 30 yards away I felt the need to put a shoulder into the QB (not even half as violent as this kid's hit...because, you know...135 lbs). Right away I felt bad and knew it was a cheap shot and was ready to help him up. But just then, one of their trailing OLineman who had to have been about 50 pounds heavier than I leveled me so damn hard I threw up in my mouth. Whenever I see plays like this it brings me back to that time, and the taste of a mashed potatoes and turkey gravy pre-game meal.
 



rockford said:
Lombardi said, "Football is not a contact sport. Dancing is a contact sport. Football is a violent sport."
Click to expand...

The actual quote is, "Football isn't a contact sport; it's a collision sport. Dancing is a contact sport."
 

Too many kids playing football want to be pro wrestlers.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

GFBfan said:
That is true, but the nature of the game is not to destroy people.
The nature of the game is still about blocking, to help your team score more points than the other, and tackling, to prevent the other team from scoring more points than you.
That "block" did nothing to help his team score and was only done to inflict harm on an opponent. That hit does not fit in the game today.
Click to expand...

At its heart, football is about brute force. If you think it isn't, check the size of the average offensive lineman.

"Inflicting harm on an opponent," as you put it, is an effective way to "help your team score more points," and an even more effective way of stopping the other team from scoring. That doesn't mean you're trying to actually injure someone. But if you're a defender who keeps getting pounded while trying to pursue plays, you're going to be a little less quick to pursue after a few poundings. Lack of pursuit means more cutback opportunities for your ballcarriers, allowing you to "score more points." If you're a running back who keeps running into a stone wall at the LOS, you're going to start approaching the line with more trepidation, decreasing the likelihood that you're going to score. If you're a receiver catching a slant just before a DB's shoulder catches you in the gut, it's highly unlikely you're going to be reaching for anymore passes.

Maybe it's become politically incorrect to say it, but football is a physical battle. Some people may not like that, and that's fine. But if it isn't, then why the hell are high-level players the size they are? So we can see them better from the stands?

JTG
 

rockford said:
At its heart, football is about brute force. If you think it isn't, check the size of the average offensive lineman.

"Inflicting harm on an opponent," as you put it, is an effective way to "help your team score more points," and an even more effective way of stopping the other team from scoring. That doesn't mean you're trying to actually injure someone. But if you're a defender who keeps getting pounded while trying to pursue plays, you're going to be a little less quick to pursue after a few poundings. Lack of pursuit means more cutback opportunities for your ballcarriers, allowing you to "score more points." If you're a running back who keeps running into a stone wall at the LOS, you're going to start approaching the line with more trepidation, decreasing the likelihood that you're going to score. If you're a receiver catching a slant just before a DB's shoulder catches you in the gut, it's highly unlikely you're going to be reaching for anymore passes.

Maybe it's become politically incorrect to say it, but football is a physical battle. Some people may not like that, and that's fine. But if it isn't, then why the hell are high-level players the size they are? So we can see them better from the stands?

JTG
Click to expand...

I think the point is that the play is against the rules.
 

rockford said:
At its heart, football is about brute force. If you think it isn't, check the size of the average offensive lineman.

"Inflicting harm on an opponent," as you put it, is an effective way to "help your team score more points," and an even more effective way of stopping the other team from scoring. That doesn't mean you're trying to actually injure someone. But if you're a defender who keeps getting pounded while trying to pursue plays, you're going to be a little less quick to pursue after a few poundings. Lack of pursuit means more cutback opportunities for your ballcarriers, allowing you to "score more points." If you're a running back who keeps running into a stone wall at the LOS, you're going to start approaching the line with more trepidation, decreasing the likelihood that you're going to score. If you're a receiver catching a slant just before a DB's shoulder catches you in the gut, it's highly unlikely you're going to be reaching for anymore passes.

Maybe it's become politically incorrect to say it, but football is a physical battle. Some people may not like that, and that's fine. But if it isn't, then why the hell are high-level players the size they are? So we can see them better from the stands?

JTG
Click to expand...

Never said it wasn't. I used the word destroy, which maybe wasn't the correct choice, but the game is not about harming others so that you can win.
You could even say that about Hockey, Wrestling and even basketball to some extent. They are all about brute force or a physical battle as you say, in one way or another, yet none of them, including football, should be or are about harming your opponent.
The play in question wasn't about anything but an intent to injure, the QB no less and I would bet money that going after the QB was instilled in him by some coach.
If he was trying to help the guy who intercepted make a better return he would have blocked the OL #73 who was moving towards the sideline and in front of the QB.
 

I think it's difficult to divine "intent," as you say, and whether or not this guy intended to injure his target. If he had speared him or went for his head, that's another story.

That being said, I appreciate your respectful argument. Fact is, there's not a lot of air between our viewpoints on the dangers of the sport.

I played football, coached football and loved football ... but by the time my youngest son was old enough to play, I discouraged it. Why? Because the risks far outweigh the potential rewards.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree on interpreting this particular play. :D

JTG
 

bizzle22 said:
I don't know exactly how many HS football teams there are in MN, but it has to be 200+. So there are probably around 100 games in a given week. If you allow appeals on plays that happen during a game you could easily be looking at 20+ appeals per week. That would take a lot of time and man hours.

Plus if you do it for football, why not basketball and hockey as well? And if you do it for boys hockey then you pretty much have to do it for girls hockey. Ditto for boys/girls basketball. Surely all the other sports would chime in as well.

MSHSL is already stretched pretty thin. They don't have the resources to facilitate an appeals process. IMO this would not be a good thing. Just go with the calls on the field. Sometimes refs make bad calls, deal with it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
 

rockford said:
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
Click to expand...
They were talking about it on the radio this morning and someone pointed out that in today's HS Football you aren't allowed to hit people who are away from the play, unlike in years past when every player on the field was a live player and fair game. I don't know where the line is draw as to what is away from the play. That being said , that type of hit is still a separate call from a targeting call.
 

rockford said:
I think it's difficult to divine "intent," as you say, and whether or not this guy intended to injure his target. If he had speared him or went for his head, that's another story.

That being said, I appreciate your respectful argument. Fact is, there's not a lot of air between our viewpoints on the dangers of the sport.

I played football, coached football and loved football ... but by the time my youngest son was old enough to play, I discouraged it. Why? Because the risks far outweigh the potential rewards.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree on interpreting this particular play. :D

JTG
Click to expand...

Intent or not, that is not how football is played today.
I played and coached at the HS level for many years and have a son who is playing at college right now. That block, like I said earlier, up to about 5 years ago would have been celebrated. But things have changed quite a bit with that type of contact and it is no longer part of the game and can and should be flagged. It was away from the play and unnecessary. If it would have been a player doing that to my QB I would be furious and if it were a player on my team I would be equally upset with his actions. Aggression is part of the game but it has to be controlled.
 

SKOOKM said:
They were talking about it on the radio this morning and someone pointed out that in today's HS Football you aren't allowed to hit people who are away from the play, unlike in years past when every player on the field was a live player and fair game. I don't know where the line is draw as to what is away from the play. That being said , that type of hit is still a separate call from a targeting call.
Click to expand...

Finally saw the play on "Breaking the News" on channel 11. This is what I'm thinking. The guy wasn't even close to the play. This guy is done. Don't waste your money supporting this cause. Wonder what schools were looking at him....Macalester, Hamlin?
 

#2Gopher said:
Finally saw the play on "Breaking the News" on channel 11. This is what I'm thinking. The guy wasn't even close to the play. This guy is done. Don't waste your money supporting this cause. Wonder what schools were looking at him....Macalester, Hamlin?
Click to expand...

If true -- meaning he would lose an appeal hearing, if the MSHSL's rules allowed for one -- then I especially hope the judge denies the injunction.
 

Breaking the news again tonight on 11. The hit I guess is not considered targeting but rather blocking a defenseless player who was away from the play. 15 yards no ejection according to the rules. Judge has about 20 minutes to rule if the kid is going to play tonight.
 


#2Gopher said:
Breaking the news again tonight on 11. The hit I guess is not considered targeting but rather blocking a defenseless player who was away from the play. 15 yards no ejection according to the rules. Judge has about 20 minutes to rule if the kid is going to play tonight.
Click to expand...
You can be ejected for any contact deemed flagrant in high school football in MN
Does not have to be targeting.
 


Some guy said:
He did not play according to David la vaques Twitter
Click to expand...

Right you are:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


And so that is that. I highly doubt that the family will waste their money going through with the trial. But on the other hand, maybe the unexpected loss last night made them salty and they want to stick it to MSHSL any way they can now? We'll see ...
 

Gophers_4life said:
Right you are:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


And so that is that. I highly doubt that the family will waste their money going through with the trial. But on the other hand, maybe the unexpected loss last night made them salty and they want to stick it to MSHSL any way they can now? We'll see ...
Click to expand...
He is a wrestler.
If they actually believe they are in the right and they have the means, they will stay with the suit because I believe his suspension carries over to the first two wrestling matches potentially.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom