Vine of Messick's Taking a Defender to the Ground

[ilovetheoption]

my point wasn't that Messick's hit was a bad hit. My point was that "targeting" is an awful rule.

 

[TechnicalPossum]

You know, I love that hit, but it's pure BS that that is a legal hit, but cracking a WR over the middle is a penalty.

The emphasis on offense, offense, offense (driven by the NFL) has really taken some of the enjoyment out of the game for me.

I disagree with everything here. That guy got lit up and never saw it coming. He had his eyes fixed on our AB and was running downhill toward him. AM took about three steps straight down field and then takes an angle toward the oblivious Tulane player and lights him up.

What is wrong with a shoulder/forearm to the chest? How should Messick have blocked him?

 

[forensicbuzz]

Whether the DB saw him or not is really irrelevant. This isn't even close to targeting. The guys is essentially running directly towards AM. The AB is running up the line directly behind AM and for the DB to make the tackle, he'd have to have run straight through AM. This wasn't close to a crack-back block or targeting. You tell me that if a guy is running directly at you full steam, you wouldn't lower your shoulder and brace yourself for impact.

Personally, I think crack-back blocks are dangerous and should not be allowed. There are ways to block a guy tracking the runner without laying him out, blind-sided. My point is that this was a full-head-on collision and the DB should have seen AM. If he didn't, that's his fault.

 

[OldJacketFan]

For the love of the game! Why do ANYBODY think this was an illegal block/hit on the DB. Look at the video! Damn, he lit the dude up, legally. The DB was focused on the back and got nailed. I know the crackback and targeting rule, this hit isn't even CLOSE to being a violation either in the spirit or the letter of rule. Clean hit, pure and simple!

 

[Bennett]

Stating that this hit is illegal means you know nothing about football. The DB won't have this happen again. Pain is an excellent teacher

 

[dressedcheeseside]

What's funny about this play is that it defies the laws of physics. F=ma. Granted the db has less mass than MA, but he has way more acceleration. Newton's laws of motion are defied too. MA doesn't move backwards after the collision one little bit. It looks like a cartoon to me.

 

[AE 87]

What's funny about this play is that it defies the laws of physics. F=ma. Granted the db has less mass than MA, but he has way more acceleration. Newton's laws of motion are defied too. MA doesn't move backwards after the collision one little bit. It looks like a cartoon to me.

smh

 

[deeeznutz]

If that block was wrong, I hope we never do right! I love seeing our ABs & WRs put some fear into the defense for a change. A couple blocks like this and all of a sudden defenders slow down and keep checking their peripherals

 

[GTNavyNuke]

What's funny about this play is that it defies the laws of physics. F=ma. Granted the db has less mass than MA, but he has way more acceleration. Newton's laws of motion are defied too. MA doesn't move backwards after the collision one little bit. It looks like a cartoon to me.

True F=ma and both had the same force applied. MA just had his load transferred through the ground and the Tulane player had his force transferred though deceleration. Great hit.

 

[GTpdm]

True F=ma and both had the same force applied. MA just had his load transferred through the ground and the Tulane player had his force transferred though deceleration. Great hit.

(Physics nerd chiming in...) NavyNuke is pretty much spot-on here, although his formal "physics-jargon" leaves a little to be desired. That's okay though—it's not like anyone is going to have an exam on this stuff or anything (although my students have one tomorrow).

In a collision, the forces between the two colliding players certainly are equal in magnitude (by the 3rd law of motion), BUT if Messisk is planted with both feet squarely on the ground when the collision occurs, then he has more that just the collision force acting on him; the ground is pushing forward against him in equal measure to the force with which his legs are pushing back (i.e. bracing) against the ground (3rd law again). The DB, on the other hand, looks to be caught in mid-stride, and is probably not in a position to brace himself against the ground—he can't push back strongly against the ground, so the ground can't push forward strongly against the DB (there's that 3rd law again).

Once we have a handle on the net force that is acting on each player, it is easy to understand their motion. The DB has a large, unbalanced force acting on him (the collision force, plus maybe only a weak opposing force by the ground): BAM—total momentum kill. Messick, on the other hand, is experiencing opposing forces that are approximately in balance: his overall momentum is hardly changed, although he does pay a price for that, in the form of a large compressional load on his body—in essence, the two forces are trying to squash him in place, rather than move him anywhere. As long as his frame is able to sustain the load, he stays upright.

[Sorry....I saw physics mentioned and I couldn't stop myself....]

 

[OldJacketFan]

(Physics nerd chiming in...) NavyNuke is pretty much spot-on here, although his formal "physics-jargon" leaves a little to be desired. That's okay though—it's not like anyone is going to have an exam on this stuff or anything (although my students have one tomorrow).

In a collision, the forces between the two colliding players certainly are equal in magnitude (by the 3rd law of motion), BUT if Messisk is planted with both feet squarely on the ground when the collision occurs, then he has more that just the collision force acting on him; the ground is pushing forward against him in equal measure to the force with which his legs are pushing back (i.e. bracing) against the ground (3rd law again). The DB, on the other hand, looks to be caught in mid-stride, and is probably not in a position to brace himself against the ground—he can't push back strongly against the ground, so the ground can't push forward strongly against the DB (there's that 3rd law again).

Once we have a handle on the net force that is acting on each player, it is easy to understand their motion. The DB has a large, unbalanced force acting on him (the collision force, plus maybe only a weak opposing force by the ground): BAM—total momentum kill. Messick, on the other hand, is experiencing opposing forces that are approximately in balance: his overall momentum is hardly changed, although he does pay a price for that, in the form of a large compressional load on his body—in essence, the two forces are trying to squash him in place, rather than move him anywhere. As long as his frame is able to sustain the load, he stays upright.

[Sorry....I saw physics mentioned and I couldn't stop myself....]

My head hurts and not from Messick's hit

 

[AE 87]

(Physics nerd chiming in...) NavyNuke is pretty much spot-on here, although his formal "physics-jargon" leaves a little to be desired. That's okay though—it's not like anyone is going to have an exam on this stuff or anything (although my students have one tomorrow).

In a collision, the forces between the two colliding players certainly are equal in magnitude (by the 3rd law of motion), BUT if Messisk is planted with both feet squarely on the ground when the collision occurs, then he has more that just the collision force acting on him; the ground is pushing forward against him in equal measure to the force with which his legs are pushing back (i.e. bracing) against the ground (3rd law again). The DB, on the other hand, looks to be caught in mid-stride, and is probably not in a position to brace himself against the ground—he can't push back strongly against the ground, so the ground can't push forward strongly against the DB (there's that 3rd law again).

Once we have a handle on the net force that is acting on each player, it is easy to understand their motion. The DB has a large, unbalanced force acting on him (the collision force, plus maybe only a weak opposing force by the ground): BAM—total momentum kill. Messick, on the other hand, is experiencing opposing forces that are approximately in balance: his overall momentum is hardly changed, although he does pay a price for that, in the form of a large compressional load on his body—in essence, the two forces are trying to squash him in place, rather than move him anywhere. As long as his frame is able to sustain the load, he stays upright.

[Sorry....I saw physics mentioned and I couldn't stop myself....]

This is pretty much what I said a few posts earlier.

 

[Boomergump]

When I saw that on the replay today it did not even occur to me that it could be illegal. It was above the waist and directed to the DBs chest. A shoulder to the chest is legal everywhere in football correct? Where the DB is looking is irrelevant to the rule book. It is however, very relevant to the victim after feeling that pain. Wham! Football is a tough sport for tough people. That is why I don't play.

 

[Bennett]

This thread has truly become a GT thread... Let's focus on football and not physics

 

[AE 87]

When I saw that on the replay today it did not even occur to me that it could be illegal. It was above the waist and directed to the DBs chest. A shoulder to the chest is legal everywhere in football correct? Where the DB is looking is irrelevant to the rule book. It is however, very relevant to the victim after feeling that pain. Wham! Football is a tough sport for tough people. That is why I don't play.

cause you weak

 

[GTpdm]

smh

[...and then I said "blah blah blah" ]

This is pretty much what I said a few posts earlier.

You got me, there--your explanation managed to get all the physics distilled down to three letters!

Points to AE 87...

 

[dressedcheeseside]

(Physics nerd chiming in...) NavyNuke is pretty much spot-on here, although his formal "physics-jargon" leaves a little to be desired. That's okay though—it's not like anyone is going to have an exam on this stuff or anything (although my students have one tomorrow).

In a collision, the forces between the two colliding players certainly are equal in magnitude (by the 3rd law of motion), BUT if Messisk is planted with both feet squarely on the ground when the collision occurs, then he has more that just the collision force acting on him; the ground is pushing forward against him in equal measure to the force with which his legs are pushing back (i.e. bracing) against the ground (3rd law again). The DB, on the other hand, looks to be caught in mid-stride, and is probably not in a position to brace himself against the ground—he can't push back strongly against the ground, so the ground can't push forward strongly against the DB (there's that 3rd law again).

Once we have a handle on the net force that is acting on each player, it is easy to understand their motion. The DB has a large, unbalanced force acting on him (the collision force, plus maybe only a weak opposing force by the ground): BAM—total momentum kill. Messick, on the other hand, is experiencing opposing forces that are approximately in balance: his overall momentum is hardly changed, although he does pay a price for that, in the form of a large compressional load on his body—in essence, the two forces are trying to squash him in place, rather than move him anywhere. As long as his frame is able to sustain the load, he stays upright.

[Sorry....I saw physics mentioned and I couldn't stop myself....]

How do you "brace" against the ground when you are standing straight up? I know that's an exaggeration, but it doesn't appear that he has that much lean into the collision. Even if he does, the angle of the force is not equal to the angle of his brace, not by a long shot. I'm not challenging your explanation, only trying to understand it better. I teach physics, too, but in middle school.

 

[Boomergump]

cause you weak

I can't even get dressed without pulling a muscle at this point. Football? Out of the question.

 

[AE 87]

How do you "brace" against the ground when you are standing straight up? I know that's an exaggeration, but it doesn't appear that he has that much lean into the collision. Even if he does, the angle of the force is not equal to the angle of his brace, not by a long shot. I'm not challenging your explanation, only trying to understand it better. I teach physics, too, but in middle school.

He was delivering a hit with both feet planted against a guy with no feet planted against a guy with no feet planted. And, he be strong. If the DB were not there, he would've fallen forward.

 

[GTpdm]

How do you "brace" against the ground when you are standing straight up? I know that's an exaggeration, but it doesn't appear that he has that much lean into the collision. Even if he does, the angle of the force is not equal to the angle of his brace, not by a long shot. I'm not challenging your explanation, only trying to understand it better. I teach physics, too, but in middle school.

Angle has nothing to do with the magnitude of the force that's involved. What it affects is torque--the more you "lean in" to contact with another player, the less tendency there is for the contact to rotate your body.

That's actually one of the things that impressed me in the video; the fact that Messick did not appreciably bow backwards during the contact says to me that he has some serious lower body strength, to be able to handle the lateral strain that resulted from a ground force at his feet and an opposing collision force at his shoulder.

[Sorry Bennett; football is physics, to an extent...]