Eric Martin, Cheap Shot Artist or Victim of Overreaction?
I missed much of the Eric Martin controversy on Saturday, as I had turned away from the television when the replays came on, and so I never really saw anything about it until Tuesday night after finding it on YouTube.
The replays I've found are rather inconclusive to me as to whether he hit Andrew Hudson in the helmet first or in the shoulder. The replays I see suggest that Martin drove into Hudson's shoulder from the side, and the impact of the blow and the angle of the play led Martin's helmet into Hudson's facemask.
But watching these replays in a split-screen where the focus was on the larger field isn't particularly conclusive. The end zone view wasn't of much help here either. Again, it looks to me like he was making contact with the upper body, but then the angle and ferociousness of the hit led to a whiplash effect on Hudson.
But in the grand scheme of things, whether Martin aimed for the helmet or the shoulder doesn't really matter if you read Big XII Commissioner Dan Beebe's news release. You see, Martin wasn't suspended for hitting Hudson's helmet, he was suspended for leading with his helmet.
"Mr. Martin committed a flagrant act of targeting an opponent with the crown of his helmet in violation of NCAA Football Rules," Beebe said in his news release.
That changes the situation a bit, and when you look at the picture, you can see that the helmet is out in front of the rest of his body. So is that what got Martin in trouble? Well, look at the first picture, where Nebraska's Justin Blatchford is leading with his head. Same with several of the players in the second screen snapshot. The natural position of the body is to have the head leading the way in most of these football situations.
And that's the problem with this call. This type of play happens several times a game, but usually the other player isn't blindsided by it. The blindsiding in this situation wasn't Martin's fault. Hudson should have seen him coming, and frankly, should have been expecting contact.
This play reminds me of a similar play two years ago. In the first quarter, Missouri's Sean Weatherspoon launched himself at Joe Ganz, nailing Ganz in the helmet. No flag was called on the play at that time, and frankly, since the rules were changed last season, there probably wasn't any basis to pursue it further at that time. This season? Who knows, but based on the precedent set this week, very likely so. Certainly Nebraska fans will be calling for a flag the rest of the season if there is any indication that an opponent led with his helmet.
Fifteen or twenty years ago, this play wouldn't have been controversial. With more cameras being used in coverage of games (and in HD), you now see even more of the game than you ever had before. Would Ed Cunningham even have seen this play during a college football broadcast back then? Even so, without YouTube and home DVR's, most of us wouldn't be able to give this play a second look unless we had hooked up our VCR.
Now with all of this technology, we now have a way to dig into football like we've never before. Remember last year's Virginia Tech game, when Matt O'Hanlon let Danny Coale catch an 81 yard pass, setting up the game-changing touchdown. Without technology, fans wouldn't have had a chance to see what caused O'Hanlon to make that mistake; namely, three receivers breaking deep with only two safeties deep.

That little bit of indecision in trying to decide whether to cover tight end Greg Boone gave Coale all the room he needed to break into the clear. But it's something that would have only be seen on coaches film in the past.
That's little comfort to Eric Martin, who will have to watch the Missouri game in street clothes, or his teammates. It's even less comfort to Andrew Hudson, who's still recovering from the effects of this play.
This is the first post in a series about the intersection of sports and technology, sponsored by Samsung.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Suspension
The actual suspension doesn’t bother me since it could actually go either way. My problems stem from a few things.
1) /Sarcasm – This is obviously the first time this has ever happened since enacting the rule last year so I applaud the use of it now.
2) I have a problem with leaving the discretion to utilize the rule to the B12 where effectively they are determining intent. You can’t possibly determine intent and therefore, all games should be reviewed and all hits similar to this should be auto suspensions – no matter the intent. ( In another words, I don’t think this rule should be used and the referees are on the field for a reason. Seems to me they thought this hit was legal.)
3) The rule probably wouldn’t have been used except we happened to have a zealot for an announcer who wanted to talk about the “football community” that of course he belongs to and of which he is their leading spokesman.
4) Said announcer probably doesn’t say anything about the hit if the kid is okay and bounces up after the hit and thus, no suspension would have occurred.
Hey, You Know Its Friday Morning
I just wanted to say, really good MU/NU analysis! Now I know why CornNation folks are so giddy about RMN’s analysis, you don’t have any. Man, we have it good.
We already gave our analysis
Mizzou has no flaws. Nebraska will struggle to keep the game within three touchdowns. That’s it. Is there something else you wanted us to say? :-)
by Cheeseandcorn on Oct 29, 2010 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
I was under the
impression that, that was the analysis also. We actually beat RMN to the punch on it.
GBR!
by HuskerINtheArmy on Oct 29, 2010 8:26 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Ugh
Why couldn’t I be a morning person, this WAS SUPPOSED TO BE MY COMMENT! I have been priming for it in almost every other thread.
by George W. Beadle on Oct 29, 2010 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Why didn't you show up on gameday, mpfische?
Oh, because you’re a tool and NU slapped Mizzou all over the place. Haha!
You Guys Are Clever...
I’m still waiting for the analysis promised on Monday about how you’re gonna keep Missouri under 21.
Reply Fail?
Or are you really so upset by the coverage on an opponents board that you made two separate comments?
by George W. Beadle on Oct 29, 2010 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Uh
What the heck are you talking about?
by Husker Mike on Oct 29, 2010 11:23 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I've said it before, but it bears repeating:

"...when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to."
— Martin Luther




























