Good catch here by Brooks Austin:
Like everyone else, I saw the cut block on Carter. However, I didn’t catch the one on Walthour.
I don’t think either was malicious. I do think Mizzou’s line technique is lazy, bordering on atrocious. And the only way to clean up shit like that effectively is to call the penalties! If you don’t, you’re just enabling more of the same, with a greater likelihood of injury to come.
C’mon, SEC, get it together. Clearly Missouri’s o-line ain’t.
Get The Picture 
Is their OL coach a fish fry disciple? That’s straight out of his book….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yea thats some knee diving GA Tech shit right there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Disagree Senator. The block on Carter the lineman made a beeline to the knee area when the ball was snapped. Looks to me like with his helmet. Dirty SOB
LikeLiked by 2 people
So, I’m to the point now that I want Drink to turn it around this year and keep his job. That dork deserves one last beatdown in Athens before getting pink slipped.
LikeLiked by 8 people
It was targeting.
An offensive player targeted an opponent’s lower leg and injured it on an illegal block.
Intentional or not, it was targeting and it caused an injury.
He’s been playing football long enough to know not to do that.
The refs know they’re supposed to call it.
That Zebra is right there looking at it. He should be suspended or worse and the player should be held out of the first half this week.
I don’t know the ref’s motivation for not calling this, but I’d bet he would have been happy with a UGA loss.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Call it lazy, not malicious whatever, it is what it is, player engaged while another blocks below the waist, that is intent, it is designed and it is taught that way, whether # 88 was beating that ass all game long and these two decided to send #88 to the tent is even malicious by intent, it’s a bullshit play, but then again, it’s been going on since man has been rubbing two sticks together to stay warm while tailgating…GO DAWGS!
LikeLike
If we’re so concerned about player safety that we’ve made targeting the ultimate foul, we should do to same with blocking below the waist. I don’t think it should carry an ejection (just as I don’t think a first targeting foul should either), but all forms of the block should be a 15-yard penalty and loss of down. It’s a dangerous play regardless of its legality. Chop blocking is the ultimate coward play to hit someone low while being engaged with another player.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Most targeting is not intentional or taught – that chicken shit cut block is TAUGHT and INTENTIONAL so he should be suspended for the balance of the game at a minimum.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Yep. At every level of football brains are prioritized more than knees, but I agree that chop blocks should carry a very stiff penalty (15 yards, loss of down, etc.). In fact, I would go further and say that illegal blocks below the waist can be called by replay just like when targeting is NOT called on the field but replay determines that it should have been called. Everyone watching the Missouri game when Carter was down saw the play several times and everyone knew what it was. Unlike you though, I would probably be in favor of ejection unless replay determined that it was not the fault of the offensive lineman that he fell into the legs of an engaged defensive player. In both pictures in the tweet, the offensive lineman was clearly diving low on a player engaged with a teammate. If there are no mitigating circumstances on a targeting call and it results in ejection, then so should what this Missouri offensive lineman did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s totally fair.
LikeLike
My opinion is that all blocking below the waist should be penalized. I don’t mean the guy trips and happens to go below the waist. If the official can determine the player intentionally blocks below the waist (a typical cut block), throw the flag and penalize 15 + loss of down. A chop block deserves the same treatment as targeting. Do it while the player is engaged with another? You’re gone, and yes, that can be determined on review.
I’ve never been a fan of the targeting ejection, but I do understand why it’s in place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem with “in both pictures in the tweet” is that it assigns intent based on an outcome that was not necessarily known at the time of action.
“WTF does that mean?”
Consider this scenario:
The ball is snapped. The Tackle makes a diving attempt to get his head across the body of the DT who is moving away. At the start of the Tackle’s movement, it is not certain that DT will be engaged with the Guard. It is possible the DT will slant directly into the block, or will rush straight upfield. A moment later, the DT has his hands on the guard, and the Tackle’s body collides with the DT’s lower body. That frame is captured and goes viral.
But the action wasn’t taken with malicious intent, nor was the player engaged at the moment the Tackle initiated his block.
Now, there are myriad other scenarios where these chop blocks happen, and we’ve seen plenty of disgusting ones. When the cut comes after a few seconds delay, like on screens and some draws, it is particularly egregious. It’s possible one (or both) of these was such a play.
Sometimes, tho, it is a matter of actions playing out as they do, and the final result appearing far worse than the intent.
Personally, I’d be in favor of removing blocking below the waist from the game entirely. What would happen tho, inevitably, is game-winning scores would be called back when an OL slips and his hand hits the thigh of a DL. And we’d all be furious.
Players would be safer, tho.
Do it for the kids.
Go Dawgs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nah, I think he’s dirty. The ESPN crew made a point to mention that when he was at App State, his teams put a lot of muschamp’s guys in the training room for knee stuff.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It was the same guy, RT #66, on both plays.
LikeLike
And that jackass has knee-braces on BOTH knees.
LikeLike
Most OL wear braces on both legs.
LikeLike
Why should anyone expect anything close to competent officiating from SEC officials? Outside of doing everything in their power to make sure Alabama wins whatever game they are playing, SEC officials fail at pretty much everything expected of them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The gumps pays more.
LikeLike
“I don’t think either was malicious.”
Why not? The one on Carter was so awkward that the guy had to be aiming for him (he wasn’t pushed by someone else which I know can happen) and not really trying to block him. I think that you’re taking the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ concept a little too far. There is such a thing as malicious recklessness and this fits that perfectly.
But the thing that really pisses me off – and I need to find a way to get over it –
is the officiating on it. Is there a way to know which official told Kirby he was comfortable with it? I’d just like to be on the look out for him in future games.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He didn’t just dive low and throw a shoulder. He reaches out to grab the leg in order to try to snap it, which he nearly did. That’s malicious intent and deserves immediate suspension along with a sideline warning. That was way beyond a “football” play.
LikeLike
It was the Umpire that made a no call while looking straight at it. If the SEC backs him because of the BS “Judgement Call” excuse, then the next time that crew works a game just call for a crossing pattern with Washington taking the Umpire out for the game. Ops didn’t see you there, sorry. Most those Umpires are too damn slow to get out of a play anyway. Sorry but once could be a mistake but two times by the same guy is intentional.
LikeLike
Auburn uses cut blocks, too.
LikeLike
The officiating was shit. From this to late hits, helmet-to- helmet and other nonsense. The inconsistency is maddening, especially in this age of player safety. The pregame stuff should have been a sign of what was to come.
LikeLike
eethomaswfnc is correct, if player safety is really important then protecting ALL PLAYERS from career ending/threatening injury is the goal. Doing away with cut blocks (all blocks below the waist) would solve this and make it VERY easy for officials. They no longer have to decide if another lineman is engaged since ALL blocking below the waist draws a flag.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now that it has been brought up by UGA expect several calls on it this weekend, against UGA. Even if borderline it will be called this weekend. SEC officials are going to officiate.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You hit the nail on the head.
Remember when a big deal was made about Bama getting away with pass interference (a few years ago) and on Georgia’s first pass play the Zebras got us for O PI?
LikeLike
“Malicious?” How about intended payback for that dust up in the end zone prior to the start of the game?
LikeLike
I’m telling ya’ CKS has a long memory and there is a future ass whoopin’ headed Missouri’s way. Multiple FU TDs for this shit.
LikeLike
It was a thought out move by the same o lineman in both pictures.
Probably taught and practiced.
I played o line in the late 1970’s when this kind of block got you “attaboys.” It was legal, taught, and practiced.
Combo blocks are now taught where both linemen stay high, engage, disengage, and one climb to the next level.
When I played, one lineman, usually the one head up to a d lineman, or the d lineman was on your outside shoulder, would fire out low, aim for the inside knee. The other lineman or tight end would fire out and attack the outside shoulder, hopefully knocking the d lineman over the low block, then climb to the linebacker.
I can still hear my o line coach now “he can’t make a tackle while he’s on his knees, TAKE HIS KNEES OUT!!”
LikeLike