| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sciz
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 12833
Location: Iowa
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Sacks98 wrote: | First of all that is done by a Dallas guy so he is going to be biased secondly Tate went Parallel got in front of him and destroyed him not Tates fault Lee isn't looking straight.
Not Defenseless or blind sided at all Tate was in front of him. |
Tate was behind Lee. Then he was in front of Lee. How is that possible without approaching from behind?
And if I'm not supposed to listen to the Dallas guy because he's biased, then you're not in any better of a position to talk.
_________________
Shut up, NBT |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hawkman98272
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Posts: 17416
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sciz wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | First of all that is done by a Dallas guy so he is going to be biased secondly Tate went Parallel got in front of him and destroyed him not Tates fault Lee isn't looking straight.
Not Defenseless or blind sided at all Tate was in front of him. |
Tate was behind Lee. Then he was in front of Lee. How is that possible without approaching from behind?
And if I'm not supposed to listen to the Dallas guy because he's biased, then you're not in any better of a position to talk. |
What? Lets' watch.
Only reason he was in front of him was because Lee started running vertically up field.
_________________
^^^^^^^^Kempes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirensong
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 671
Location: Vancouver BC
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sciz wrote: | | Sacks98 wrote: | First of all that is done by a Dallas guy so he is going to be biased secondly Tate went Parallel got in front of him and destroyed him not Tates fault Lee isn't looking straight.
Not Defenseless or blind sided at all Tate was in front of him. |
Tate was behind Lee. Then he was in front of Lee. How is that possible without approaching from behind?
And if I'm not supposed to listen to the Dallas guy because he's biased, then you're not in any better of a position to talk. |
What? LOL.
Tate was NEVER behind Lee, he was coming downhill on a peel back.
_________________
L.O.B.- D!CK, BOOM BOOM, ET, BB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sciz
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 12833
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sorry, been spewing that rule so long that I'm starting to generalize too much 
Tate cannot approach Lee from the side or back. He's clearly approaching (not hitting, but that doesn't matter) from the side. I said the back in my last post, which would also be illegal.
Anyway, I'm out of here. I've done enough arguing over something that the professionals have already ruled on once and are going to rule on again. Let me know if that appeal gets anywhere. (It won't.)
_________________
Shut up, NBT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sacks98
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 3502
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I still don't see how that is a blind side hit they were 4 feet away from each other he should have enough awareness Tate isn't going to let Lee just tackle Wilson he even got in front of him before the block.
To me a blind side hit would be from coming out of no were that's not what i see here.
Also his appeal might not be won but a site is raffling off tickets to help pay for it.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
