Katy Paetow vs College Station DOF

[first_year_guy]

Did anyone see the significant DOF call in this game during overtime?  DOF was the call when a defender jumped into the NZ causing the wingback to react...it is my understanding that the wingback is NOT protected.  FST should have been the call, this potentially cost CS the game, maybe coaches picks is not the best route?

[bctgp]

You are correct, the Back in this case was not as we say "protected".

I won't comment on Coaches picks as that has been debated ad nauseum in the past.

[dammitbobby]

Do you have a video of it?

If it's the one I am thinking of, there was some discussion in the chat room about this, because while it was a wing back that moved, it was a field goal formation and he was close to being on the line (he was slightly offset to block the end coming off the corner, and he absolutely moved in reaction to the defense player directly across from him stemming. ( I don't think anyone who saw it would say he moved on his own volition, i.e., getting the snap count wrong, etc., it was definitely a reactionary move of his foot.) 

The discussion(as I recall) was whether or not he was actually on the line because of his positioning.  I agree with the DOF call because he wasn't lined up like a true back, he was dang near on the LOS on the end of the line and he reacted to the defensive player directly across from him moving into the NZ.  I can't recall if he broke the center's butt or not.

And same on coaches picking - literally everyone thinks/says it's a bad idea but the powers that be (TASO and UIL) like the system just as it is.

[bctgp]

Look at 46:12 mark of the you tube video. Link included [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B77Ap1Bj2TA][/url]

Clearly in the backfield (not on the line).

[Clear Lake ref]

Whether you think it was DOF or not is irrelevant here. Spirit of the rule can not directly contradict the actual rule.

Also the butt drop on the snapper could have been a FST.

[dammitbobby]

ok, he definitely wasn't a lineman, don't know why I was thinking that, probably mixing it up with something else.  But man, that's a tough call to pin on the wingback.  He's clearly reacting to the defense, clearly in the NZ,in his area of responsibility, right in front of him. 

I wouldn't mind seeing a rule change or AR  to address this (on scoring kicks.)

And yes I didn't notice that but you could have had FST on the center as well.

[CosmoKramer]

My 2 cents...it should have been a FST and not a DOF.  But it is what it is at this point.

Coaches should have ZERO say in who officiates their playoff games.  This even includes the coaches having a say in which chapter is being used.  As others mentioned as long as the UIL gives the coaches this authority this is how it will be.  But as long as the UIL does in fact give the coaches this authority then there will always be inappropriate things done in order for officials to get themselves into consideration.  TASO tries to put rules into place to prevent solicitation but we all know those rules are not followed.  Again, it is what it is!

[Etref]

One must remember that UIL is in fact ruled by the superintendents of the schools

[TexDoc]

In opinion it was the incorrect call.  It should have been a FST.

[dammitbobby]

By the letter of the rule, yes it is FST... but where I struggle with it, is trying to understand why in this this situation it is a foul on the offense, when if he was on the line, it would be on the defense.  This isn't a scenario where a back is 3-5 yards away from the ball, with no one directly threatening them.  Arguably you could say that the back wasn't truly threatened, but the defender crossed into the NZ directly across from him, into his area of responsibility, and he reacted to that.  I just don't see where the line is, that says this goes on O, or this goes on D, in this particular situation. What sets the two apart?  Just because he is one yard off the ball? Wouldn't it make sense to extend the protection afforded the offense of being allowed to immediately react to a D player in the NZ in their area, to a player lined up one yard or less from the LOS, in their immediate area?  Because if I'm a coach, why wouldn't I coach my DEs to try to get the back to move, since he is not afforded by current rule any leeway whatsoever in movement, and take my chances on him being in the NZ at the snap, because 50% of the bad things that can happen, are eliminated by rule (automatic DOF because lineman moved is out, leaving only being in NZ at snap.)

If the rule affords linemen protection from being penalized when a defensive player is in the NZ in their immediate area, it should also extend to the wing back on scoring kicks such as this (immediate reaction, in their immediate area, or directly in front.)

Help me understand they why part of this.  Just my 0.02 

[Etref]

Bobby,
To understand it you have to go back a few years. Don’t remember the year but before a rule change if ANY offensive player reacted to defensive movement, it was a false start. Rule change allowed for the offensive line to react only to protect themselves from being hit.

[ElvisLives]

Time and distance.
No one would ever excuse an offensive lineman 'reacting' to a stomp of a foot by a defensive player several yards off the NZ.
But, when a defensive player moves forward into the NZ, he will, in all likelihood, be in very close proximity to an offensive lineman. It is simple human nature to react more quickly to movements that are close to you. The rulesmakers have set 'within one yard of the NZ' as the area within which a defensive player is not permitted to move forward into the NZ and cause a reaction by an offensive lineman that is head-up or to either side of the defensive player. Offensive backs are far enough way to be able to be expected to NOT react to such defensive movement. The defensive player is far enough away that the amount of time it takes for the offensive player to see and process that movement should be sufficient for him to recognize the movement as being before the snap, and and he should not react. If the backs are pressing their position - most likely, technically, illegally - then they put themselves at greater risk of committing a false start by reacting.

Personally, the only rule change I think we need is to eliminate the "stationary" element of 7-1-5-a-4. Linebackers and DBs should not be allowed to move up to within a yard of the NZ and make those stomping/lunging movements within 6 yards either side of the ball.

[dammitbobby]

Thanks to both of you - both replies were informative and answered my question. 

[TexDoc]

Personally, the only rule change I think we need is to eliminate the "stationary" element of 7-1-5-a-4. Linebackers and DBs should not be allowed to move up to within a yard of the NZ and make those stomping/lunging movements within 6 yards either side of the ball.

I agree!

[Clear Lake ref]

Not that it actually does anything, but is the instance where it becomes a protest game since this wasn’t a judgement call but a straight misapplication of the rule?

[ElvisLives]

Not that it actually does anything, but is the instance where it becomes a protest game since this wasn’t a judgement call but a straight misapplication of the rule?

I don't speak for the UIL, nor do I know their policy regarding protests. But, while not a strict "judgment" call, that error does not rise to a level causing a forfeit or some sort of replay of the game, if the UIL even has those remedies in their policy. The only thing that would come of protest is an acknowledgement that an error was made.
If they have such remedies, I would think it would take an erroneous awarded of score, or a failure to award a score, either of which that directly affected the outcome of the game, to rise to anywhere close enough to a level that would justify allowing either of those remedies.
A misapplication of rule that awards the ball to the wrong team is very bad, but, unless it results in a team making a score, and it happens in a time critical situation, I don't see that rising to the requisite level, either.
As hard as we try, we make mistakes. Part of life. Get used to it. Get over it.

[CosmoKramer]

I don't speak for the UIL, nor do I know their policy regarding protests. But, while not a strict "judgment" call, that error does not rise to a level causing a forfeit or some sort of replay of the game, if the UIL even has those remedies in their policy. The only thing that would come of protest is an acknowledgement that an error was made.
If they have such remedies, I would think it would take an erroneous awarded of score, or a failure to award a score, either of which that directly affected the outcome of the game, to rise to anywhere close enough to a level that would justify allowing either of those remedies.
A misapplication of rule that awards the ball to the wrong team is very bad, but, unless it results in a team making a score, and it happens in a time critical situation, I don't see that rising to the requisite level, either.
As hard as we try, we make mistakes. Part of life. Get used to it. Get over it.

Well stated here.  Lord knows anyone will try to protest anything they can.  And if they ever open that door to protest any rules misapplication there would be protests issued every week, involving every chapter.  Unfortunately rules misapplications occur regularly.  Every week I can find somewhere that DPI was enforced half the distance to the goal line and that's a common misapplication of a rule.

[Rmars86]

I understand that a strict reading of the rulebook would give you FST.  After talking to a number of LOS officials and coordinators (some at a very high level) about this specific play, there's no way I'm giving the defense that call.   They caused it, and by the spirit of the rule I'm putting that flag as DOF all day.

If it was a running back 4-5 yards deep in the backfield, that's a different conversation.  But this wing was one yard off the ball and the defender immediately in front of him literally jumped into the gap that he's responsible for.

/my opinion anyway..... until my commissioner tells me to do it differently.

[JasonTX]

I understand that a strict reading of the rulebook would give you FST.  After talking to a number of LOS officials and coordinators (some at a very high level) about this specific play, there's no way I'm giving the defense that call.   They caused it, and by the spirit of the rule I'm putting that flag as DOF all day.

If it was a running back 4-5 yards deep in the backfield, that's a different conversation.  But this wing was one yard off the ball and the defender immediately in front of him literally jumped into the gap that he's responsible for.

/my opinion anyway..... until my commissioner tells me to do it differently.

The note listed with AR 7-1-3-V makes it pretty clear that the exception only applied to Linemen.  The same for AR 7-1-3-III.  At some point a line has to be drawn on who is protected and who isn't.  How far in the backfield would a back have to be to not be protected?  1 yard, 2 yards, 3 yards?  It's much easier to determine if they are protected or not just by simply knowing if they are a back or a lineman.

[JDM]

I understand that a strict reading of the rulebook would give you FST.  After talking to a number of LOS officials and coordinators (some at a very high level) about this specific play, there's no way I'm giving the defense that call.   They caused it, and by the spirit of the rule I'm putting that flag as DOF all day.

If it was a running back 4-5 yards deep in the backfield, that's a different conversation.  But this wing was one yard off the ball and the defender immediately in front of him literally jumped into the gap that he's responsible for.

/my opinion anyway..... until my commissioner tells me to do it differently.

This is what a Division 1 Coordinator opined to me: "This is a FST as this offensive player who moves is not protected as he is a back."

[TexDoc]

I understand that a strict reading of the rulebook would give you FST.  After talking to a number of LOS officials and coordinators (some at a very high level) about this specific play, there's no way I'm giving the defense that call.   They caused it, and by the spirit of the rule I'm putting that flag as DOF all day.

If it was a running back 4-5 yards deep in the backfield, that's a different conversation.  But this wing was one yard off the ball and the defender immediately in front of him literally jumped into the gap that he's responsible for.

/my opinion anyway..... until my commissioner tells me to do it differently.

With all due respect, you would be wrong to call it DOF.  This is not opinion, this is how the rule is written.

[bctgp]

100% agree with TexDoc here. While every possible foul in Football is not a 100% absolute, this one is. The Team A Back moved and created a FST foul. He was a back - not a lineman - there is no debate about him being a back - it's very clear on the video. If we can't all agree on that - Houston we've got a problem.  Just saying.

[dammitbobby]

I agree that in the black and white of the rule book, this is a foul. 

That said - and this may be for this specific instance only - I also agree with Rmars86, that within what I believe the intent of the rule to be, to protect B from getting cheap FST fouls against A, this should be DOF.  He clearly and immediately reacted to B's move into the NZ, in his area of responsibility.   Had he been 2-4 yards in the backfield, I think we wouldn't be even having this conversation. 

It's unfortunate the way the rule is worded, that for this specific instance, he is penalized for that. 

I see - and appreciate - both sides, but like others have said, letter of the law is FST.

[Kalle]

That said - and this may be for this specific instance only - I also agree with Rmars86, that within what I believe the intent of the rule to be, to protect B from getting cheap FST fouls against A, this should be DOF.  He clearly and immediately reacted to B's move into the NZ, in his area of responsibility.   Had he been 2-4 yards in the backfield, I think we wouldn't be even having this conversation. 

Well, back when the rules were changed so that a lineman can react to a team B player entering the NZ (see, even I'm old enough to remember the time when there was no rule 7-1-2-b-3 exception), the rules makers decided to include only the linemen in the exception. So, the intent of the rule is pretty clear, to protect only the linemen. If the intent changes, the rule language should change as well. If you want your TE to have the protection then you have the easy solution of changing your lineup so that the TE is on the line and the outer receivers are in the backfield.

An interesting quirk in this rule: 7-1-2-b-3 talks about restricted linemen but the exception applies to all linemen. But rule 7-1-2-b-4-a, which applies to all linemen, does not have the same exception...

[JasonTX]

I agree that in the black and white of the rule book, this is a foul. 

That said - and this may be for this specific instance only - I also agree with Rmars86, that within what I believe the intent of the rule to be, to protect B from getting cheap FST fouls against A, this should be DOF.  He clearly and immediately reacted to B's move into the NZ, in his area of responsibility.   Had he been 2-4 yards in the backfield, I think we wouldn't be even having this conversation. 

It's unfortunate the way the rule is worded, that for this specific instance, he is penalized for that. 

I see - and appreciate - both sides, but like others have said, letter of the law is FST.

Our consistency would be all over the place if we tried to apply some type of "intent".  One crew may think 1 yard in the backfield is far enough to lose protection while others may think it's 2 yards or something else.  It's much easier to just use ALL backs are not protected as the rule is written.