Typical Ole Miss. The coaches and players change, but they are Ole Miss.
Dart faked that.....
- Thread starter L4Dawg
- Start date
He didn’t fake anything. He was out.
If he didn't fake it then they totally ignored the concussion protocol.
No he didn’t. That was real. He’s playing concussed
That would also be very Ole Miss. they don't give one crap about their players.
I'm sure their lawyers are all over it. ******
Again, it's not what he did when it happened. It's what he did afterwards. He faked being woozy, and came back after one play as sharp as ever. He faked it. They ARE Ole Miss and they fake things as a matter of course.
It was totally faked. You don't come back looking as sharp as he did if you are concussed. They are famous for faking injury. If you get right down to it, it's what Kiffin's Ole Miss teams are most recognized for. He missed one play, and was sharp as a tack when he came back . No way that was real. He faked it to insure that targeting was called. That was a huge play in the game, and it worked for them, as it always does.
Exactly what advantage does ole miss gain from having their QB fake an injury? Slow themselves down, rotate to a fresh QB? You’re not making a lick of sense here. The guys body literally went limp and he dropped the football. They got a first down because of targeting. Nothing that dart did or didn’t do
To my knowledge when you dive head first you negate the protection of basic qb targeting fouls….he became a runner. What if that was Jud getting hit same way? Is it targeting? That’s what I’m upset about. The rule isn’t black and white….as it should be. Once he leads with a head he’s giving up his QB rights.
It can be argued that he lunged with his head…and by rule, that’s targeting on him.
We were going in for a tackle. But as it is with every Kiffin game it seems, the envelope of rules and realities are tested. Dude can’t just play and win a normal close game without fake injuries, phantom Pi’s or going for it 35 times on 4th down until one of their bush league calls ignite a first down.
It can be argued that he lunged with his head…and by rule, that’s targeting on him.
We were going in for a tackle. But as it is with every Kiffin game it seems, the envelope of rules and realities are tested. Dude can’t just play and win a normal close game without fake injuries, phantom Pi’s or going for it 35 times on 4th down until one of their bush league calls ignite a first down.
I totally agree, but according to the letter of the law of a BS rule, that was targeting.
He was a runner, not defenseless target. He dove with head first into tacklers who were going in for a tackle. Yes helmets hit but it’s no difference than a running back breaking through secondary coverage and diving for a first down. I don’t see any way our players could have avoided a collision at the point of contact. You are taught to go lower than than the person with the football but how can you get lower than a ball carrier at 12 inches above the turf…especially at the first down marker . It should have been a no call. Our players were going in for a tackle…not going in at head or neck ….as the targeting rule states. It’s a ******** call that ended up going against us and this rule needs to be amended…especially upon the 1foot line of a first down. I’m not questioning darts initial reaction…he was definitely stunned. And if anyone questions the kids toughness, you obviously don’t know football or havnt watched him play…ever. He’s tough as nails.
Problem here lies with the rule and it not being objective to the situation…..one way or the other. It was a football play, amongst football players, nothing malicious or intentional. However, if a ball carrier dives headfirst, where else is the defense supposed to tackle? We were obviously protecting a boundary. Were we just supposed to give up the free first down because he decided to dive at the first down? If this is the case, every goal line situation from a RB should be targeting…as the the ball carrier is obviously going to lounge head first as the defender makes a tackle to drive him backwards.
it’s a ******** call and chicken **** argument.
Problem here lies with the rule and it not being objective to the situation…..one way or the other. It was a football play, amongst football players, nothing malicious or intentional. However, if a ball carrier dives headfirst, where else is the defense supposed to tackle? We were obviously protecting a boundary. Were we just supposed to give up the free first down because he decided to dive at the first down? If this is the case, every goal line situation from a RB should be targeting…as the the ball carrier is obviously going to lounge head first as the defender makes a tackle to drive him backwards.
it’s a ******** call and chicken **** argument.
I'm saying he sure recovered quickly from walking off like he didn't know where he was.
sounds like to me you have a beef with the officials not kiffen, I didn't see Lane throw on flag. He does whine about a penalty on most plays but I've still yet to see him throw a flag.
A first down instead of 4th. Also easily within FG range at a critical point in the game where points were at a premium. Consider also how the momentum changed after that.
How did faking an injury result in a first down? Are you saying the refs would not have reviewed without an injury or perception of an injury?
I don't recall the flag coming out immediately. Even if it did, that doesn't change the possibility that there was a fake unless Dart 100% knew there was a flag thrown before his reaction.
What I can say from personal experience is, if you are knocked wobbly from a head shot, you are not very likely to be fine a minute or two later.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.