Skip to content

SEC suspends Ole Miss DB for ‘flagrant and dangerous act’

Trae Elston

A play very late in the win over UTEP this past weekend will cost Ole Miss a player for their upcoming game against a school from the same state.

With 3:18 left in the fourth quarter, freshman defensive back Trae Elston went high and hard on a Miners wide receiver near the goal line, although the play didn’t draw a flag.  It did, though, draw the attention of the SEC.

Commissioner Mike Slive announced Tuesday morning that Elston has been suspended for the Sept. 15 Texas at Ole Miss football game.  The release stated that the one-game suspension was “the result of a flagrant and dangerous act” on the part of Elston, and used both the NCAA’s rulebook and the conference’s own constitution to explain the reasoning behind the punitive measure.

The action is in violation of Rule 9-1-4 of the NCAA Football Rule Book, which reads, “No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder,” and Rule 9-1-3 which states, “No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet.”

This action is taken in accordance with Southeastern Conference Constitution, Article 4.4.2 (d) which states that a student-athlete may be suspended if it is determined that the student-athlete has committed a flagrant or unsportsmanlike act.

Did the hit deserve a suspension?  You be the judge:

Said head coach Hugh Freeze in a statement, “We are disappointed to lose Trae for this weekend, but we are moving forward as a team and focused on Texas.”

Elston is listed as a backup safety on Ole Miss’ most recent depth chart

(Photo credit: Ole Miss athletics)

Permalink 25 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big 12 Conference, Conference USA, Ole Miss Rebels, Rumor Mill, Southeastern Conference, Texas Longhorns, Top Posts, UTEP Miners
25 Responses to “SEC suspends Ole Miss DB for ‘flagrant and dangerous act’”
  1. ningenito78 says: Sep 11, 2012 10:54 AM

    Hell no that doesn’t deserve a suspension. There didn’t look to be any intent. The helmet to helmet sure looked incidental.

  2. hbegley6672 says: Sep 11, 2012 10:57 AM

    I understand the concern, it’s a clean hit

  3. apmn says: Sep 11, 2012 11:14 AM

    No intent? Come on. He could have made a play on the ball if he hadn’t been so intent on making a knockout.

  4. thecrazyasianinseccountry says: Sep 11, 2012 11:17 AM

    Love Slive, but C’Mon!!

  5. driley715 says: Sep 11, 2012 11:21 AM

    Clean hit. Good football play. He coulda picked the ball off because the wr slowed up when he heard footsteps. Nevertheless, not worthy of suspension

  6. foreverlsu says: Sep 11, 2012 12:15 PM

    Clean hit to me.

  7. manchestermiracle says: Sep 11, 2012 12:48 PM

    Don’t know what replays you guys are looking at. Helmet to helmet is a no-no. Elsten targeted the receiver’s head area with his own helmet. He’s lucky he only got a one-game suspension.

  8. marthisdil says: Sep 11, 2012 1:28 PM


    If you look at the video, and pause it when the hit takes place, you see the defender ducking his head out of the way and planting his sounder in the guy’s chest.

    it was a clean hit.

  9. marthisdil says: Sep 11, 2012 1:28 PM


  10. thefiesty1 says: Sep 11, 2012 1:53 PM

    Texas’ Mike Davis and Jaxon Shipley say thanks Mr. Slive.

  11. alligatorsnapper says: Sep 11, 2012 2:09 PM

    What perspective did Slive have that we don’t have with this video? Did Slive have a 6 or 8 camera view that was in the control room, that did not make it to air? I watched the video over and over, then magnified it to see if it was my eyes which were defective and I did not see a violation or intent to do anything but make a valid, though hard hit.

    This may be erring on the side of caution, but with no flag thrown by the referees who were watching, how does that reach the commissioner’s desk to review?

    Ole Miss has enough challenges already, and now to face the Big Gun in Texas, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. Then for the gauntlet of the SEC West. Nothing much easy is coming for Head Coach Freeze and the Rebs.

  12. houndofthebaskervols says: Sep 11, 2012 4:00 PM

    Mike Slive is a retarded headline grabbing POS!

    That was a clean hit, there was no blow to the head, anybody can see that. Ole Miss should be raising hell about this and calling in the lawyers.

  13. Walk says: Sep 11, 2012 5:22 PM

    Hard and clean hit from that replay. Defender put his shoulder into the reciever’s chest.

  14. mikefoxtrottango says: Sep 11, 2012 6:00 PM

    College football mirrors the NFL more and more every day. What a shame.

  15. mogogo1 says: Sep 11, 2012 6:24 PM

    apmn says:

    No intent? Come on. He could have made a play on the ball if he hadn’t been so intent on making a knockout.

    Maybe… Problem with hindsight is it’s always perfect. Defenders constantly have to make split-second decisions on whether to play the ball or go for the tackle. And we’ve all seen cases where the guy went for the INT and gave up a huge play and he gets absolutely roasted for not going for the tackle.

    In this case he decided to get there at the same time as the ball and jar it loose. It’s how football is played, it didn’t draw a flag on the field, it wasn’t an obvious spearing play where he led with the helmet, but he’s suspended because days later somebody in an office decided it was an ugly play? I don’t really like that outcome.

  16. Walk says: Sep 11, 2012 6:39 PM

    I quit watching pro football several years ago because of fines after the game on clean plays. It got to the point where i was watching a bears game where a bears db stopped so he would not get a fine and slipped because he had to stop, under the new rules, and fell. That allowed the game winning td. That was enough for me. Last pro game i watched. The referees in the game ruled it a clean play hence no flag. This is not the type of play that is well away from the ball that no one sees. If anyone needs to be suspended for this it should start with the referees who did not flag it then move on to the players. If that play is illegal then change the rules and educate the referees and players.

  17. thraiderskin says: Sep 11, 2012 6:56 PM


  18. tuckfexas says: Sep 11, 2012 8:34 PM

    Does he lose his game check? After all, it is the $EC.

  19. jag8r904 says: Sep 11, 2012 10:00 PM

    How did it get to the point where it is against the rules for football players to play football?

  20. clemsonstillsucks says: Sep 11, 2012 10:56 PM

    It’s a clean hit. Apparently Slive isn’t used to watching SEC film – LOL. Probably a dozen or more hits identical to that across the conference this past weekend.

    Now – a hit like that in the ACC…yeah, they would suspend it because they’re not used to seeing it (until they play an SEC team – LOL).

  21. norcalirish says: Sep 12, 2012 3:22 AM

    Not only was it clean, but that video was hilarious. Hopefully that kid is ok, but man…landshark? Lol

  22. frank booth says: Sep 13, 2012 12:26 AM

    The defender didn’t even see or make a play for the ball and clearly made helmet-to-helmet contact. If you can’t see the helmet-to-helmet contact, you need to see an eye doctor.

    Whether there was intent or not, only Elston knows that answer, but the DB looked like he had him lined up to take him out. That’s not the idea of the game.

  23. mckissack11 says: Sep 13, 2012 8:15 PM

    Wow, that was just a good football play. This crap is getting ridiculous. He actually led with his shoulder if you look properly, the helmet is always going to be there, but was not a direct helmet hit. Very clean play.

  24. 2012dylanshaw says: Sep 17, 2012 8:29 AM

    holy sh**,the wussification of college football continues.he blew him up,great hit,not suspension worthy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!seen plenty of hit worse than that over the weekend!guess none of the teams will have a secondary this week!!!

  25. mazblast says: Sep 18, 2012 2:08 AM

    I don’t know if it’s suspension-worthy, but clearly the DB was not playing the ball. He was targeting the receiver.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!