Ok, usually Spurrier gets mad over little things, but he lets this slide? Something isn't right here. Translating this video isn't rocket science. Here are the events that I can clearly see: The ref is out of place (he should be somewhere in between the tackles); He is crouching down in a defensive stance, eyeing Garcia like a lion on prey; he is side-stepping while Garcia runs to the side (staying in front of Garcia the whole time); he is moving forward towards Garcia instead of away; and then he is lunging his body forward with an elbow to Garcia's upper body. If you try and say that is self-defense, you are kidding yourself. That ref. did everything possible to put himself in Garcia's path, and did nothing to avoid it. All that aside, how much officiating is he doing by eyeing Garcia the whole play? What was his purpose in moving towards Garcia where he knows LSU tacklers are going to be swarming? This is ludacris! If that is the fastest he can try and "get out of the way", he has no business officiating on any level. I don't know what the motives were behind this "self-defense" move by the ref. and I don't care. It should have never happened like it did. If he was in "danger", he should have moved away from the play, and not moved right at where the most danger on the field is going to occur, the tackle!

I think there can be almost no question that this was an intentional hit on Garcia.  What gives me this confidence and leads me to this conclusion isn't the way the contact happens (ref's shoulder down and arm up, which is bad enough, by the way), but looking at where the referee puts himself in the field of play.  If you watch a replay and eliminate all but the hit at the end of the film, there is no apparent reason for the official to move across the field when or in the manner that he does.  The official is supposed to put himself in the best possible position to make the correct call, which necessarily means both close enough to clearly see what happens and far enough to get the bigger, overall picture of the play.  If anything the ref shouldn't have moved side-to-side at all, but should have backpeddled  his way toward the end zone while watching the play develop.

The ref took a step towards the QB and left his feet to deliver the forearm. That is not getting out of the way to me.

Coach Spurrier was playing college sports politics when he said that he thought Hackett was just defending himself. The athletics director for The University of South Carolina actually controls thier football program off the field and behind the scenes. This has been Carolinas down fall for decades. Way to political. Thank Goodness for replay. Hopefully Hacket was at least severly admonished behind closed doors.

wow! nice hit

It looked an awful lot like the ref sunk his hips and delivered a blow.  It was definitely dirty.  And I thought the NBA Mafia ref was bad.  At least he never dunked it on Shaq.

What you are not seeing is that several plays before this one, The same ref was in the way of A LSU receiver. That allowed A Carolina player to intercept the ball and put them in position to be going for the touchdown.

He thought 2 wrongs would make it right

This is such a crock of you know what. This was intentional. NOT debateable! What is going on in the SEC? Boom needs to wake up. Yeah, there is more contact in that position than others, but we are not stupid. Fans deserve a little more respect than that answer.

This kind of stuff makes you question the whole league. Stop playing buddy-buddy and do the RIGHT thing. DIsciplinary action is appropriate here.  

Anyone who knows anything about football, or happenend to be at that game; WHICH I WAS knows that was an intentional hit. But, welcome to the SEC.

It was a load of crap; and so intentional it's not even funny. But whatever, I suppose I forgot that it was football, and not WWE. Seems like anything goes in the SEC.

Yes, this was an intentional hit.

The Moron Referee will probably be voting for "Barry Obama" as well.

Wow, I don't watch college football (watch the pros) but this seems intentional. I would love to see an argument for it not being intentional. The runner didn't seem angry after the play, though, but maybe he is just well-disciplined?

    Any ideas for how this might be claimed unintentional? I am open to it, just not seeing it.

I doan't thinck he didd it on purpis, i thinke it wass n acksident, dee dee dee, i like tater tots!

I want to know who wrote this article, because unless they can step their own game up in the way of grammar usage, punctuation, and fact-checking, they need to be put "on hiatus."  This was a painful article to read; "their last lead in game they’d lose 24-17" ... huh?  And I thought umpires were only in baseball; isn't Hackett's position that of "referee?"

Journalism slides further down the crapper.