RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Classics => Topic started by: wv ref on October 29, 2011, 08:01:10 PM
-
Just wanted to make sure my logic on this play is right. HS guys before you respond please make sure you are familiar with NCAA rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-DoltcPIqw
Wade was properly ejected for a flagrant foul becase he 1) targeted a defenseless player and 2) led with the crown of his helmet. The second one being the major reason for the ejection
The Vanderbilt player gave an invalid fair catch signal which causes the ball to become dead when possessed by the receiving team.
What should of happened.
Because there were 2 fouls on the same thing the option is that of the official between
Kick Catch Interference ( 15 yards from the spot)
Flagrant Personal Foul ( 15 yards from the succeeding spot)
The ball should have been dead as soon as it was picked up then there would have been a 15 yard penalty from that spot. Since they picked it up in ran it should have been a delay of game on Vandy, but since there was not a whistle a) they probably didn't see the singal b) since there was no whistle its had to penalize vandy for taking off.
Either choice of penalty does not effect the state of the ejection.
Finally since they did let vandy run back the ball the choice was made to go with the personal foul call since it would allow 15 yards to be tacked to the end of the run.... therefore not sure why vandy declined the penalty
-
It wasnt an INVALID fair catch signal. He was shielding his eyes from the sun. The ball remains live and in play.
-
just to clarify: when I referred to an illegal fair catch signal I was referring to his left hand, not his right one above his head. I initially thought he waived his left had for a fair catch now I am not sure he wasn't just trying to keep his balance. but seems like it could deff be close to an invalid signal.
-
In the first part of the video, it did look like he gave an invalid fair catch signal with his left hand. The close up replay showed he did not, in my opinion.
Best regards,
Brad
-
I see no signal And since the crew let the play continue they saw no invalid signal so erase the delay of game foul from consideration.
The KCI has a specified enforcement spot so cannot be tacked on. However, they could have have tacked on the personal foul targeting from the end of B's return.
-
Either choice of penalty does not effect the state of the ejection.
Finally since they did let vandy run back the ball the choice was made to go with the personal foul call since it would allow 15 yards to be tacked to the end of the run.... therefore not sure why vandy declined the penalty
Since the foul occured during the kick play and the running play started after the foul, the only two options were penalty enforcement at the spot of the foul (the 22 + 15 yards / 37 yard line), or decline the penalty and take the result of the play (ball at the 50 yard line). The obvious choice is decline the penalty and take the ball at the 50.
-
Since the foul occured during the kick play and the running play started after the foul, the only two options were penalty enforcement at the spot of the foul (the 22 + 15 yards / 37 yard line), or decline the penalty and take the result of the play (ball at the 50 yard line). The obvious choice is decline the penalty and take the ball at the 50.
no sir. Fouls by A during he kick can have penalties enforced as a tack on (except KCI)
-
The KCI has a specified enforcement spot so cannot be tacked on. However, they could have have tacked on the personal foul targeting from the end of B's return.
Are you saying that the KCI is also a personal foul and Team B can take penalty enforcement for either?
-
That's my story on this play. The player targeted with the helmet. Call it KCI, Call it targeting. I am going with targeting.
-
That's my story on this play. The player targeted with the helmet. Call it KCI, Call it targeting. I am going with targeting.
I know that if DPI occurs as a result of an act which is consider a personal foul, Team A can take penalty enforcement for either. But I don't see any support for the same 2X option for a KCI foul.
-
I don't see why not. There are many single acts on the field that could be called multiple fouls. and if you don't want to subscribe to that, then why not just say this is targeting and forget about the KCI part?
-
no sir. Fouls by A during he kick can have penalties enforced as a tack on (except KCI)
Then why did we end up snapping from the actual end of the run at the 50 yard line? Didn't they simply call this KCI (not a personal foul) but ejected the offending player anyway?
-
I don't see why not. There are many single acts on the field that could be called multiple fouls. and if you don't want to subscribe to that, then why not just say this is targeting and forget about the KCI part?
If a Team A player committed KCI by tackling the punt receiver, would you give Team B the option to take the 10 yard (holding) penalty as a tack on?
-
Then why did we end up snapping from the actual end of the run at the 50 yard line?
Probably the same question the Vandy coach would ask if he knew the rules.
-
If a Team A player committed KCI by tackling the punt receiver, would you give Team B the option to take the 10 yard (holding) penalty as a tack on?
After seeing this play I would.
-
Do we know exactly what the call on the field was?
-
KCI, declined, but player ejected
-
After seeing this play I would.
Take a look at AR 6-4-1-II
A Team B player, about to catch a scrimmage kick, is tackled before
the ball arrives but catches the kick while he is falling. RULING:
Kick-catch interference. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the foul.
Disqualification of the Team A player if the contact is flagrant. If the
foul is between the goal lines, enforcement is from the spot of the foul
and Team B puts the ball in play by a snap; if behind Team B’s goal line,
award a touchback and penalize from the succeeding spot. The ruling
would be the same had the kick been muffed or fumbled. The ruling
is also the same on an unsuccessful field goal attempt since Team B
touched the ball beyond the neutral zone.
And AR 6-4-1-VIII
Fourth and 10 at the 50-yard line. B17 is at Team B’s 20-yard line and in
position to catch Team A’s high scrimmage kick. During the downward
flight of the ball, A37 contacts B17 viciously and flagrantly before he
touches the ball. A37 did not alter his speed or make any attempt to
elude B17. RULING: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with
the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the
foul. A37 is disqualified.
Don't see any mention of tack on for personal foul.
-
That is because neither one of them include a significant run by B after the foul. These are not really the same situation as what happened in this game.
In the first AR play the 10 yard tack on would be less than what they get with the 15 yard KCI. And in the second one, we don't even know how the play ends so cannot judge on tack on.
(Good tries though as they almost made me change my hard-headed mind) ;)
-
So back to the original question - if the only logged penalty here was KCI during the kick play as it appears, where would the ball end up if the KCI had been accepted?
-
B37
-
The Call on the field was a PF ,
To me this most closely resembles this AR in the rule book
7-3-9
e. Contact by Team B with an eligible receiver involving a personal foul that
interferes with the reception of a catchable pass may be ruled either as
pass interference or as a personal foul with the 15-yard penalty enforced
from the previous spot. Rule 7-3-8 is specific about contact during a pass.
However, if the interference involves an act that ordinarily would result in
disqualification, the fouling player must leave the game.
also just to give the rulebook quote for the reason it doesn't matter that it was before the change of possession
SECTION 1. Personal Fouls
All fouls in this section (unless noted) and any other acts of unnecessary
roughness are personal fouls. For flagrant personal fouls mandating conference
review, see Rule 9-6. The penalties for all personal fouls are as follows:
PENALTY—Personal foul. 15 yards. For dead-ball fouls, 15 yards from the
succeeding spot. Automatic first down for fouls by Team B if
not in conflict with other rules. Penalties for Team A live-ball
personal fouls behind the neutral zone are enforced from the
previous spot. Safety if the live-ball foul occurs behind Team
A’s goal line [S7, S24, S34, S38, S39, S40, S41, S45 or S46].
Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified [S47].
For Team A fouls during free or scrimmage kick plays:
Enforcement may be at the previous spot or the spot where
the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B
There for my best guess is Vandy did not understand what would have happened had the accepted the penalty, or it was improperly explained.
-
It does matter that the foul was pre possession by B. The "tack on" will only apply if it was that way because the tack on only applies to kick plays. Once B starts the return it is no longer a kick play, it is a running play. In most cases a foul by A during B's return would be enforced from where B's run ends but there are (as always) exceptions. Ex:
B returns 10 yards, fumbles and another B player recovers and advances 10 more yards. If A fouled during the first B run that penalty could not be enforced from the end of B's 2d run. But this is not a "tack on" enforcement, this is a simple 3 and 1 enforcement.
And on a play just like this video there would almost never be a reason to even give B an option. The choice is obvious. I suppose if this was the last play of a quarter B might choose to decline the penalty so quarter would end but that would be rare.
-
I was trying to keep from singling out a particular post but I did misspeak so let me rephrase,
The previously quoted ruling is why we don't rekick.
-
The call was NOT KCI, but "deliberate personal foul". Use this link, and listen at the 2:05 mark. The words "kick catch interference" were never used, nor was that penalty recorded in the official play by play. The announcement was, "Personal foul, deliberate personal foul, #1 of the kicking team. The Penalty is declined, the result of the play is a first down, however #1 is ejected."
You Tube of broadcast without ESPN announcers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yziMVn0TGSw&feature=player_embedded)
Given that it was a personal foul and not KCI, the foul should have been tacked on. It should not have even been a choice, just enforce it.
-
Who gives a rat's arse what it was called on the field? It was enforced as KCI which would have been properly declined. It was KCI and UNR. The pooch was once again screwed. But he is used to it as it is not an uncommon occurrence.
-
Who gives a rat's arse what it was called on the field?
I can assure you that Steve Shaw cares what it was called on the field.
It was enforced as KCI which would have been properly declined.
That's the problem, it was an improperly enforced personal foul. The announcement was correct, the enforcement was wrong.
The pooch was once again screwed. But he is used to it as it is not an uncommon occurrence.
I agree, they blew the enforcement.
Not sure who "he" is in your reference.
-
"He" is the pooch.
-
That's the problem, it was an improperly enforced personal foul. The announcement was correct, the enforcement was wrong.
On the other hand, the enforcement matches that for KCI, i.e. the penalty was declined. Perhaps the announcement was wrong?
-
just want to jump in here a little. While I understand the logic I'm not yet sold on the option of two different fouls with different enforcements - KCI or "targeting" under 9-1-3. Just haven't ever thought about it until this discussion.
What if K grabs the receiver's face mask before he catches the kick and then runs 30 yards? Are the proponents of two options saying it is KCI or FMM against the kickers, B's option?
Or KCI vs. holding? R grabs and holds receiver who somehow catches the kick and runs 30 yards?
[Of course I know there are some who beleive there cannot by KCI if R catches a kick - I'm not one of them. :)]
Also, before the new tack enforcement for K fouls, my crew had this twice in one season - where K runs right through the receiver full speed well before the kick got there and high. Never dawned on any of us to consider giving the option of either a KCI enforcement OR a "deliberate personal foul" (whatever that is) enforcement. We did eject the players both times.
TXMike says the two cited ARs don't apply because there were no "significant" returns. Not sure that I buy that interpretation without some real authority. Seems to me they control unless otherwise specifically stated by RR or another AR.
And in all my years I've never heard any discussion or chatter about an "option" under these circumstances which always leads me to beleive there really isn't an option.
Hope I didn't miss a bulletin play or official interpretation. (wouldn't be the first time!)
Bottom line for me - I'm not going with the "2 different fouls option" until I get something more authoritative. Hope we're all not to quick to judge this crew for what they did 'cause I would have done the same thing.
-
Hope we're all not to quick to judge this crew for what they did 'cause I would have done the same thing.
Hope not, because either the announcement or the enforcement was incorrect.
I'm not suggesting the offended team get an option of fouls for a single act, but the officials certainly have some discretion in deciding what was the foul here, because that act could have been KCI, or it could have been a personal foul. It meets the definition of either one.
And I think "flagrant" personal foul would have been a better announcement than "deliberate" personal foul.
-
Just to be clear... I am not saying the R is the "pooch". The CREW did screw the pooch not uinlike many of us in our crews also screw the pooch at times. We all know the R is bound by what is reported to him. They white hats are not permitted to think a little and question. ;)
Z99 - the AR's are NOT this play at all. The AR plays do not inclue the component that this play did which changes the whole complexion of things, the return by B. Comparing the AR plays to this one is apples-oranges. (Or at least Granny Smith - Red Delicious).
Why in the world would the rules permit handling DPI fouls as either DPI or PF but yet something as bad as the play under discussion not permit the same? I gotta call a spade a spade and thinking we can't do the same on this play is just purely illogical.
-
That is because neither one of them include a significant run by B after the foul. These are not really the same situation as what happened in this game.
In the first AR play the 10 yard tack on would be less than what they get with the 15 yard KCI. And in the second one, we don't even know how the play ends so cannot judge on tack on.
(Good tries though as they almost made me change my hard-headed mind) ;)
OK, Mulehead. Chew on this block of hay.
The last sentence in 6-4 PENALTY reads, "Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified." That sentence also appears in the PENALTY statements at the end of the descriptions for personal fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct. I believe the presence of that statement means that offenders will be DQ if they commit a flagrant act in context with those fouls. But other specific aspects of the penalty enforcement are unchanged.
Example: B67 kicks A34 in the head. That's a PF (15 yards per basic spot and auto first down) and B67 is DQ. By extension if a Team A player impedes a Team B punt receiver in a flagrant fashion, e.g. targeting, penalty enforcement is the same as outlined in the 6-4 PENALTY and the offending player is DQ.
Why do you think that sentence appears in those specific PENALTY statements?
-
You can have a flagrant KCI that is something else also. I dang near had it Saturday. The gunner drives a shoulder into the chest of the returner just before or just as the ball arrives. That is a "simple" flagrant KCI. In the Vandy play, there was another foul involved, targeting. That changes the equation. The statement regaridng ejection of flagrant offenders is in all those rules just to reinforce what we already have in the rules. The rules say anyone who commits a flagrant foul is ejected. There is no option IMHO. If we judge a foul to be flagrant, the offender MUST be ejected.
-
Mark Curles....I don't know how he continues to work in the SEC. Every game he works is a cluster @#$%. Surely there are better candidates for white hats in the SEC than him.
You need to take off your "cardinal-colored" glasses and watch Curles again.
-
TxMike - what about my face mask, holding, KCI examples? Would you say R has two options? I respectfully disagree that just because R returns the kick, those two ARs are totally irrelevant.
Blue: don't be so harsh on announcements as they don't have any judicial effect on the enforcement or rules. Yes, it's great if we were perfect on the mic, but sometimes that's the least of our worries in difficult situations. To me "deliberate" isn't all that bad, unique perhaps but not something we'd lose sleep over.
-
TxMike - what about my face mask, holding, KCI examples? Would you say R has two options? I respectfully disagree that just because R returns the kick, those two ARs are totally irrelevant.
Yes, if the gunner grasps and twists the facemask while interfering with the opportunity to catch, you have 2 fouls. Just like if B does the same thing while committing DPI. In most cases, there will be a muff of the kick and A or B will fall on the ball.
AR 6-4-1-VIII does not even tell us what the result of the play is. It is useless in this discussion. 6-4-1-II involves a returner who is fouled and catches the kick and tackled, apparently all at the same spot. Again, not the play in question so useless. And we know the rules trump the ARs anyway. There is no rule that says a single act can only be 1 type of foul. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, there are many single acts that actually could be called one of a variety of fouls. I know the rulebook does not specifically have a section in KCI like 7-3-9-e for DPI but the logic behind 7-3-9-e seems (to me anyway) to clearly call for a similar interpretation on KCI. 7-3-9-e is in there because certain acts of DPI cry out for a stronger penalty. The same is true for certain acts of KCI. They obviously deserve a stronger penalty.
-
Yes, if the gunner grasps and twists the facemask while interfering with the opportunity to catch, you have 2 fouls. Just like if B does the same thing while committing DPI. In most cases, there will be a muff of the kick and A or B will fall on the ball.
AR 6-4-1-VIII does not even tell us what the result of the play is. It is useless in this discussion. 6-4-1-II involves a returner who is fouled and catches the kick and tackled, apparently all at the same spot. Again, not the play in question so useless. And we know the rules trump the ARs anyway. There is no rule that says a single act can only be 1 type of foul. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, there are many single acts that actually could be called one of a variety of fouls. I know the rulebook does not specifically have a section in KCI like 7-3-9-e for DPI but the logic behind 7-3-9-e seems (to me anyway) to clearly call for a similar interpretation on KCI. 7-3-9-e is in there because certain acts of DPI cry out for a stronger penalty. The same is true for certain acts of KCI. They obviously deserve a stronger penalty.
I guess the bottom line for me - does anyone have anything from any higher authority to support the "2 option" intererpretation other than our own reading of the rules?
-
I guess the bottom line for me - does anyone have anything from any higher authority to support the "2 option" intererpretation other than our own reading of the rules?
I'm not sure I understand the question: are you doubting whether one act can constitute multiple fouls? What about the O-tackle who catches a pass in front of a safety, thereby committing ineligible downfield, illegal touching, and OPI? That's 3 at once...
-
I'm not sure I understand the question: are you doubting whether one act can constitute multiple fouls? What about the O-tackle who catches a pass in front of a safety, thereby committing ineligible downfield, illegal touching, and OPI? That's 3 at once...
I'm specific on this KCI type of play and the idea of enforcing from the spot of the foul or tacking it on. As I've said, I understand the logic but have never heard of it until now. If it's so right, then why have we not seen (unless I simply missed it) a NCAA bulletin play, a pre-season test question, something from RR, etc. especially when the tack on rule first came about?
And before the tack on rule, we still didn't hear anything about 2 options on this type of play - spot of the foul or replay at the previous spot.
It doesn't matter to me what the final, final answer is - I don't need to be right and am often wrong - but I do need authoritative answers. Here's hoping the 2 options theory is correct because I would want to penalize as much as possible for this action.
-
Considering the severity of the play, I'm sure we'll hear something about it soon.
-
I'm not sure I understand the question: are you doubting whether one act can constitute multiple fouls? What about the O-tackle who catches a pass in front of a safety, thereby committing ineligible downfield, illegal touching, and OPI? That's 3 at once...
Not sure where that is coming from - not in NCAA rules. Illegal touching - definitely; ineligible downfield, possibly; OPI - no. In NCAA, PI is contact interference with an opponent - period. There must be physical contact.
But, I am with Z99 on this issue. The foul is KCI, and only KCI, unless and until RR issues a formal interpretation saying otherwise, or the rule is changed. A flagrant KCI with contact foul can be cause for DQ. But, it is still KCI. The ability to make a PI foul a personal foul is a specific provision in the rules. That specific provision can not be applied to other fouls, as much as it may make sense or would seem 'right.' RR or the rules committee has to make it so.
-
MacDaddy, Devil Boy and Z99 :
What do you do when a single act violates several rules? Example:
A88 is covered up. He goes downfield 20 yards and interferes with B40 on a legal fwd pass play by going through his back, with his hands touching the ball before it can get to B40 and ball falls to the ground?
-
Blue: don't be so harsh on announcements as they don't have any judicial effect on the enforcement or rules. Yes, it's great if we were perfect on the mic, but sometimes that's the least of our worries in difficult situations. To me "deliberate" isn't all that bad, unique perhaps but not something we'd lose sleep over.
Wait a minute! Your words above: " "deliberate personal foul" (whatever that is)", so obviously you were questioning it as well.
I agree, what's announced doesn't have "judicial effect". however, it IS how we determine what is recorded in the official scoring report. Announcing it as a personal foul and enforcing it as KCI is an error.
SHOULD it have been enforced as KCI? Quite probably, so possibly the only error is in announcing the wrong foul. And I'm not too hung up on the "deliberate" part, only suggesting that "flagrant" would have been a better word.
But I am hung up on the announcement of a declined personal foul. There is no reason to decline a personal foul.
-
MacDaddy, Devil Boy and Z99 :
What do you do when a single act violates several rules? Example:
A88 is covered up. He goes downfield 20 yards and interferes with B40 on a legal fwd pass play by going through his back, with his hands touching the ball before it can get to B40 and ball falls to the ground?
I see the point, but I don't think that's a "single act". It's three different acts that are each fouls.
-
I'm not sure I understand the question: are you doubting whether one act can constitute multiple fouls? What about the O-tackle who catches a pass in front of a safety, thereby committing ineligible downfield, illegal touching, and OPI? That's 3 at once...
Ignoring the OPI, the ineligible downfield and illegal touching are not the same as twisting & turning the face mask of an Team A eligible receiver. The former are separated in time and, in the absence of one, you would still have a foul for the second. In the latter, the twisting & turning causes the DPI. If the Team A player did not twist & turn the face mask, there would be no DPI. Same with holding or targeting of a punt receiver. The holding /targeting IS the impediment.
-
MacDaddy, Devil Boy and Z99 :
What do you do when a single act violates several rules? Example:
A88 is covered up. He goes downfield 20 yards and interferes with B40 on a legal fwd pass play by going through his back, with his hands touching the ball before it can get to B40 and ball falls to the ground?
I think the distinction is that you have more than one single act on your example - going downfield as an ineligible, OPI and illegal touching if I'm reading your play correctly.
-
You have more than one act in the KCI play. It was KCI whether he targeted or not as he was too close. The targeting is another foul.
-
MacDaddy, Devil Boy and Z99 :
What do you do when a single act violates several rules? Example:
A88 is covered up. He goes downfield 20 yards and interferes with B40 on a legal fwd pass play by going through his back, with his hands touching the ball before it can get to B40 and ball falls to the ground?
All those are separated in time and one would stand as a foul in the absence of the other two.
-
You have more than one act in the KCI play. It was KCI whether he targeted or not as he was too close. The targeting is another foul.
No, it's one act. It could certainly be interpreted in different ways, but it was one single act that was committed.
-
I am starting to feel like Clayton Moore!
(http://claytonmoore.tripod.com/lr_silv8.jpg)
Tonto, where the hell are you? ?
-
All those are separated in time and one would stand as a foul in the absence of the other two.
Assume the returner had not moved to get in position to make a play on the ball. The act by the Ark player is still a foul. Assume the Ark player had gone into the midsection with a shoulder against the returner who DID move to make the catch. That act is still a foul.
-
You have more than one act in the KCI play. It was KCI whether he targeted or not as he was too close. The targeting is another foul.
If the Team A player did not get to close (KCI), would there have been a targeting (PF) foul? And vice versa?
Both are inseparable.
-
You have more than one act in the KCI play. It was KCI whether he targeted or not as he was too close. The targeting is another foul.
I totally disagree that there is more than one act in the KCI play - the act is the physical action by the K player, nothing separated by time or place. Your argument is that there is more than one foul arising from one signal physical act.
-
I personally don't see a problem with one act constituting two separate fouls. In something this egregious, do we really want to split hairs on whether or not we can tack on 15 well deserved yards at the end of B's run? We're already willing to stretch the definition of immediate in the rulebook for a HCT in the name of safety, I don't see the harm in calling this a flagrant PF in addition to KCI for the same reason.
Edit: Mike, I'll stand with you. It's good to keep the pot stirred once in a while. :sTiR:
-
And we know the rules trump the ARs anyway.
Dear Kimosabe,
That ain't in the rule book no more.
Tonto
PS Your own your own
-
Oh no I am not. I have a secret weapon and you know who it is. Just waiting for the right time to drop it.
-
I am with Mike on this one. Where does it say a personal foul cannot be called if it is also KCI? Where does it say that penalties have priorities (KCI trumps a personal foul). Does it also say that a defensive player that slaps the center in the head before the ball is snapped must be charged with offsides?
There is a penalty for KCI. ^flag
There is a penalty for a personal foul. ^flag
Both rules were violated. Give the offended team the option to take the one that benefits them more than the other. yEs:
:sTiR:
-
I agree, what's announced doesn't have "judicial effect". however, it IS how we determine what is recorded in the official scoring report. Announcing it as a personal foul and enforcing it as KCI is an error.
SHOULD it have been enforced as KCI? Quite probably, so possibly the only error is in announcing the wrong foul. And I'm not too hung up on the "deliberate" part, only suggesting that "flagrant" would have been a better word.
AR 6-4-1-VIII as has already been quoted - "Ruling: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. 15 yards from the spot of the foul." So, announcing flagrant personal foul and enforcing as KCI is completely correct. It does not say "from the spot of the foul or the dead ball spot." And, I believe the announcement in the game was the word "flagrant" and not "deliberate."
Also, how many times have you seen this type of play? It's plays like this that lead to rule/editorial changes to make the penalty enforcements more clear and consistent.
-
Dave - Pick up your gift at the door. tiphat:
(http://www.nicholscapguns.com/graphics/scrapbook/loneranger/tonto-outfit-1.jpg)
-
Here's another wrench in the cog...could you possibly have thrown a DB UC for taunting after the Flagrant PF/KCI and ejection? Could we have told Vandy, "You can take the KCI from the spot of the foul(22) add 15 yards for KCI (37) and another 15 for the dead ball tanting(B48)?
-
The taunt appears to have taken place during live ball action so might be a stretch to enforce as dead ball. You can only enforce 1 live ball foul.
-
And, I believe the announcement in the game was the word "flagrant" and not "deliberate."
The announcement was, "Personal foul, deliberate personal foul, #1 of the kicking team. The Penalty is declined, the result of the play is a first down, however #1 is ejected."
You can hear it at the 2:07 mark of this version of the play:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yziMVn0TGSw&feature=player_embedded, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yziMVn0TGSw&feature=player_embedded,)
As for the quoted AR, you are correct, it creates a conflict with it's wording. In full, here is the AR:
Fourth and 10 at the 50-yard line. B17 is at Team B’s 20-yard line and in
position to catch Team A’s high scrimmage kick. During the downward
flight of the ball, A37 contacts B17 viciously and flagrantly before he
touches the ball. A37 did not alter his speed or make any attempt to
elude B17. RULING: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with
the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the
foul. A37 is disqualified.
The ruling calls it a "flagrant personal foul", but then further defines it as "interfernce with the opportunity to catch a kick". It then says the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, which is consistent with KCI, but inconsistent with the "flagrant personal foul". I think this case play assumes there was not a further advancement by B. Had there not been an advancement by B, this whole discussion is a moot point. But because there was, it points out the conflict in the ruling. Is this a "flagrant peronal foul", or is it "interference with the opportunity to catch a kick"? The AR says it is both, but only gives the enforcement of the latter.
-
As for the quoted AR, you are correct, it creates a conflict with it's wording. In full, here is the AR:
Fourth and 10 at the 50-yard line. B17 is at Team B’s 20-yard line and in
position to catch Team A’s high scrimmage kick. During the downward
flight of the ball, A37 contacts B17 viciously and flagrantly before he
touches the ball. A37 did not alter his speed or make any attempt to
elude B17. RULING: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with
the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the
foul. A37 is disqualified.
The ruling calls it a "flagrant personal foul", but then further defines it as "interfernce with the opportunity to catch a kick". It then says the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, which is consistent with KCI, but inconsistent with the "flagrant personal foul". I think this case play assumes there was not a further advancement by B. Had there not been an advancement by B, this whole discussion is a moot point. But because there was, it points out the conflict in the ruling. Is this a "flagrant peronal foul", or is it "interference with the opportunity to catch a kick"? The AR says it is both, but only gives the enforcement of the latter.
I don't see a conflict in the Ruling calling the act a flagrant PF then referring to it as KCI. The personal foul caused the interference. Similarly, DPI can be caused a hold, push in the back or PF.
If the author of the AR wanted us to be able to choose between PF & KCI, he would have stated that Team B had the option to take penalty enforcement for either the KCI (15 yards from the spot of the foul) or PF (15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down).
-
If the author of the AR wanted us to be able to choose between PF & KCI, he would have stated that Team B had the option to take penalty enforcement for either the KCI (15 yards from the spot of the foul) or PF (15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down).
Or PF, enforced from the end of the run, which would have been the choice here if it was called a PF instead of KCI.
-
Wade at a press conference today. What a fine example of the English language by a COLLEGE STUDENT!
http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?SPSID=30726&SPID=2419&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=6100&id=809744 (http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?SPSID=30726&SPID=2419&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=6100&id=809744)
-
He shows great promise as a future commontater tot. Will fit in right beside the legends like Mussberger, Holtz and Gumble.
-
Or PF, enforced from the end of the run, which would have been the choice here if it was called a PF instead of KCI.
But except for the ambiguity in the announcement of the foul, wasn't this enforced exactly as the 6-4 KCI penalty enforcement statement reads:
PENALTY—For foul between the goal lines: Receiving team’s ball, first down, 15 yards beyond the spot of the foul for an interference foul [S33]. For foul behind the goal line: Award a touchback and penalize from the succeeding spot. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified [S47].
We had KCI on team A, and the flagrant offender was disqualified.
-
He was educated in Florida and New Jersey his first 19 years. We've only had him for 9 months. At least we have him saying "Yes, sir" instead of "yeah, man".
-
He was educated in Florida and New Jersey his first 19 years.
That's debatable. And I'm not doubting where he lived.
-
Isn't Jacksonville considered south Georgia?
-
The announcement was, "Personal foul, deliberate personal foul, #1 of the kicking team. The Penalty is declined, the result of the play is a first down, however #1 is ejected."
You can hear it at the 2:07 mark of this version of the play:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yziMVn0TGSw&feature=player_embedded, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yziMVn0TGSw&feature=player_embedded,)
As for the quoted AR, you are correct, it creates a conflict with it's wording. In full, here is the AR:
Fourth and 10 at the 50-yard line. B17 is at Team B’s 20-yard line and in
position to catch Team A’s high scrimmage kick. During the downward
flight of the ball, A37 contacts B17 viciously and flagrantly before he
touches the ball. A37 did not alter his speed or make any attempt to
elude B17. RULING: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with
the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the
foul. A37 is disqualified.
The ruling calls it a "flagrant personal foul", but then further defines it as "interfernce with the opportunity to catch a kick". It then says the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, which is consistent with KCI, but inconsistent with the "flagrant personal foul". I think this case play assumes there was not a further advancement by B. Had there not been an advancement by B, this whole discussion is a moot point. But because there was, it points out the conflict in the ruling. Is this a "flagrant peronal foul", or is it "interference with the opportunity to catch a kick"? The AR says it is both, but only gives the enforcement of the latter.
The audio on the clip isn't very good. I was there. The word announced was "flagrant". The AR doesn't assume anything. It simply says the enforcement is from the spot of the foul. Period. It doesn't say "or the dead ball spot." It is one foul - KCI.
-
Do you agree that DPI can be omore than 1 foul? If so, how do you square that with your assertion KCI can only be 1 foul?
-
Do you agree that DPI can be omore than 1 foul? If so, how do you square that with your assertion KCI can only be 1 foul?
Yes, I agree that DPI can be more than one foul because Rule 7-3-9-e specifically allows for it. Unfortuantely there is no such allowance for KCI - yet. Like I said earlier, it's plays like this that lead to rule/editorial changes.
-
So let me get this straight.....BamaBoy, MacDaddy, Devil Boy, et al.....
You are saying that had the Vandy player NOT been making any attempt to catch this punt and this very same hit took place, you would support a 15 yard tack on to the end of the subsequent Vandy return. But because he WAS trying to make an attempt to make the catch, his team loses the right to that yardage?
And yet none of you see this as illogical?
Signed,
Spock, aka The Lone Ranger
-
I didn't say it wasn't illogical. I just said the rule doesn't allow for it. The operative word is "yet".
-
In thinking back on this play, I don't think I've ever seen this before. I'm sure it has happened, but I don't remember seeing it. Most of the time, either the receiver gives a fair catch signal or someone falls on the ball as soon as it hits the ground (the ball is dead when possessed or there is no return). It seems "right" to tack the 15 yards onto the end of the return, but the rules don't currently allow for that. I think ALRef hit the nail on the head with his last sentence of the above post.
-
I keep seeing this "the rules don't allow it" stuff but I have yet to see anyone argue that the rules PROHIBIT this enforcement. Just because it is not specifically spelled out does not mean it cannot be done under the rules. And perhaps more importantly for those of you who have to deal with supervisors who can remove you from the field for anything they please....I have yet to see one person argue their supervisor would not support them if they did enforce the tack on.
-
I think we all agree that the A player violated 9-1-4. He has also violated 6-4-1. There is nothing in the book, however, that specifies that a violation for 6-4-1 supersedes a violation of 9-1-4. I'm not sure how we can say that Team B must only be allowed to decide on accepting the penalty for KCI.
Mike, you've got a small posse building. :)
-
The audio on the clip isn't very good. I was there. The word announced was "flagrant". The AR doesn't assume anything. It simply says the enforcement is from the spot of the foul. Period. It doesn't say "or the dead ball spot." It is one foul - KCI.
The word used was "deliberate", and it can CLEARLY be heard on the clip starting at 2:07. But that is a minor issue. The much bigger issue is that the announced foul was a "personal foul", not KCI, and the enforcement spot for a personal foul is from the end of the run.
And the AR uses both "flagrant personal foul" (which by definition can be enforced from the end of the run) and "intereference with the opportunity to catch a kick" (which can only be marked from the spot).
I agree, the AR SEEMS to make the interference call a special type of "personal foul", and specifies the location for enforcement. But the rule book doesn't make KCI any type of personal foul, it's just interference.
-
Chalk me down as one who would have had both KCI and a USC for the taunting, with a disqualification.
-
I keep seeing this "the rules don't allow it" stuff but I have yet to see anyone argue that the rules PROHIBIT this enforcement.
If you accept the fact that Wade's contact with the receiver constituted an impediment to the receiver's ability to catch the punt, there are 2 separate rules which PROHIBIT tack-on of penalty enforcement to the end the Team B's runback. Those rules are 6-3-13 and 10-2-4.
-
My question is more for Zebra99 but naturally others should jump in.....now that we have CFO videos (what used to be called 'accountability videos'), RR has occasionally commented on calls made during a game (e.g. the recent one with the LSU punter and the unsportsmanlike act).
Does anyone consider these comments 'AR's' or any other sort of interpretation? My concern is that this will be on one of the videos but not actually in print.
-
I keep seeing this "the rules don't allow it" stuff but I have yet to see anyone argue that the rules PROHIBIT this enforcement. Just because it is not specifically spelled out does not mean it cannot be done under the rules. And perhaps more importantly for those of you who have to deal with supervisors who can remove you from the field for anything they please....I have yet to see one person argue their supervisor would not support them if they did enforce the tack on.
perhaps this play has not been brought to the attention of all supervisors yet, or perhaps some are waiting for a response. But to suggest that because you haven't heard of any supervisors who would not support your tack on position, they must support it, is quite a stretch!
-
My question is more for Zebra99 but naturally others should jump in.....now that we have CFO videos (what used to be called 'accountability videos'), RR has occasionally commented on calls made during a game (e.g. the recent one with the LSU punter and the unsportsmanlike act).
Does anyone consider these comments 'AR's' or any other sort of interpretation? My concern is that this will be on one of the videos but not actually in print.
excellent point! Yes, what RR says on video is the "law of the land" and, hopefully, it will get reduced to writing somehow, sometime. That's not always happened.
And what has been noted by others - we have the rules and the ARs, but also the bulletin plays and other written interpretations published by RR. Unfortunately, these don't get into the rules or ARs as they should. I feel sorry for high school officials moving up as there's no way they would be aware of the "collateral" instructions. And, you should see my expanded rule book! 3-ring binder stuffed with notes, add ons, copies of bulletins, handwritten notes in the margins, etc. etc.!
-
perhaps this play has not been brought to the attention of all supervisors yet,
I would be shocked if every conference supervisor hasn't seen this video yet.
I'm sure many are waiting for a league response or one from RR, but how could they not be aware of it? This isn't one that has just beeen discussed on officiating boards, this one has been VERY public.
-
I would be shocked if every conference supervisor hasn't seen this video yet.
I'm sure many are waiting for a league response or one from RR, but how could they not be aware of it? This isn't one that has just beeen discussed on officiating boards, this one has been VERY public.
I agree that most have probably seen it - but you're right on that many are waiting for RR's response - so my post was only to suggest that the absence of agreement/disagreement with the "tack on" folks should not taken to the bank. Silence does not equate to taking a position.
-
quote author=Diablo link=topic=8658.msg82889#msg82889 date=1320168718]
If you accept the fact that Wade's contact with the receiver constituted an impediment to the receiver's ability to catch the punt, there are 2 separate rules which PROHIBIT tack-on of penalty enforcement to the end the Team B's runback. Those rules are 6-3-13 and 10-2-4.
[/quote]
Both 6-3-13 and 10-2-4 only prohibit tacking on KCI but specifically allow enforcing all other fouls by the kicking team (PFs are a subset of all other fouls by the kicking team).
Even though I believe a personal foul should either be called instead of KCI or in addition to KCI, if the foul is somehow flagrant only because it was contact on a player in position to catch a scrimmage kick, then I can support the interpretation that KCI is the correct call.
However, if the kicking team player leads with the helmet pior to or after the receiver catches the ball (not saying that was the case in the Arkansas game), I have a PF unless the situation dictates a greater punishment for KCI. I am not going to punish the return team because the hit was early (even if an AR allows me to only enforce the KCI).
Is there an icon that shows my comments are all over the place and dont flow well? : :!#
-
I just received the SEC conference office weekly press release and there is nothing in there on a suspension.
The ironic part of all of this is that Wade is the punt returner for Arkansas. Wonder how he would feel if he were on the receiving end of this one?
-
If you accept the fact that Wade's contact with the receiver constituted an impediment to the receiver's ability to catch the punt, there are 2 separate rules which PROHIBIT tack-on of penalty enforcement to the end the Team B's runback. Those rules are 6-3-13 and 10-2-4.
I did not make it clear...I am not saying the tack on is permitted under the KCI rule. I am asking what rule says this cannot be called a targeting PF which DOES permit the tackl on enforcement?
-
I respect a lot of folks on here, and I do find it refreshing that there is debate as to what actually happened, or at least what should have happened.
I find it odd that it is universally approved of on this board that Wade should have been ejected. I see an overzealous hit, by ducking his head at the last minute. I've seen much worse hits, and no flag even thrown. How does this qualify as an ejection foul?
Here is one example of worse, yet not even a flag:
(http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/840952/LateHit_medium.gif)
Not only one blow with the crown of the helmet, but two, and one after the whistle (yes there is no audio).
-
What you posted is just a still photo on my 'puter.
-
What you posted is just a still photo on my 'puter.
That's odd. I see an animated gif. Try going to the following link and see what you get:
http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/840952/LateHit_medium.gif
-
I just received the SEC conference office weekly press release and there is nothing in there on a suspension.
The ironic part of all of this is that Wade is the punt returner for Arkansas. Wonder how he would feel if he were on the receiving end of this one?
According to the link below, he will be suspended for this week's game.
http://www.katv.com/story/15927241/wade-suspended-for-south-carolina-game
-
I respect a lot of folks on here, and I do find it refreshing that there is debate as to what actually happened, or at least what should have happened.
I find it odd that it is universally approved of on this board that Wade should have been ejected. I see an overzealous hit, by ducking his head at the last minute. I've seen much worse hits, and no flag even thrown. How does this qualify as an ejection foul?
Not only one blow with the crown of the helmet, but two, and one after the whistle (yes there is no audio).
Art
Not sure what level of ball you are training and officiating in but I assure you that NCAA training and officiating has included great attention in recent years on acts just like this and "pressuring" officials to eject more for them. The thing you posted is clearly an ejectionable offense. But just because some official(s) erred but not booting that player does not mean other should not be booted for equally as bad offenses or even for less bad offenses.
-
I recall Keith Jackson's (the former NFL tight end, not the legendary commentator) commentary on that play and he stated, on the Arkansas network, he couldn't blame the defender for the late hit because no one was sure Johnson was down. He didn't comment on the helmet blow, and I wasn't watching the game. (I know, but golf courses are strickingly beautiful here in the Natural State this time of year.)
-
Art
Not sure what level of ball you are training and officiating in but I assure you that NCAA training and officiating has included great attention in recent years on acts just like this and "pressuring" officials to eject more for them. The thing you posted is clearly an ejectionable offense. But just because some official(s) erred but not booting that player does not mean other should not be booted for equally as bad offenses or even for less bad offenses.
TXMike, let me first say that I stand corrected. In my clip of the Ole Miss player and the Arkansas running back, Ole Miss was penalized. I definitely see two hits with the crown of the helmet from the same player, and I also understand that ejecting a player is a tough call. There is lots of gray area. I'm just trying to figure out at what point did Wade (in the Vanderbilt game) draw the ejection? He immediately jumped up, and as he went towards the sidelines, kind of stiff body "posed" (kind of like a baseball player does after hitting a homerun, assuring a bean ball next time), but he did not hover over the downed player. Seems to me if Wade was ejected for tackling with the crown of his helmet, a player who does so before the play is over, and after, should have warranted an ejection.
You guys have a tough job, I readily admit that. Wander over to the Federation board and jump into one of those horse collar arguments. I stood in the end zone with a veteran official this past Friday night, and he was screaming at the on field crew for missing what he interpreted to be a textbook horse collar.
-
I just received the SEC conference office weekly press release and there is nothing in there on a suspension.
The ironic part of all of this is that Wade is the punt returner for Arkansas. Wonder how he would feel if he were on the receiving end of this one?
I'm sure he'll get that chance, if not this season, next season.
-
I respect a lot of folks on here, and I do find it refreshing that there is debate as to what actually happened, or at least what should have happened.
I find it odd that it is universally approved of on this board that Wade should have been ejected. I see an overzealous hit, by ducking his head at the last minute. I've seen much worse hits, and no flag even thrown. How does this qualify as an ejection foul?
Here is one example of worse, yet not even a flag:
(http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/840952/LateHit_medium.gif)
Not only one blow with the crown of the helmet, but two, and one after the whistle (yes there is no audio).
I guess since OJ got off, we should never prosecute people for murder anymore.
Two flags: KPI and USC, both on Wade. Ejection.
Your gif: A pair of PF's for illegal use of helmet, one live-ball, one dead. With an ejection.
This really isn't that hard. You're just making it so.
-
TXMike, let me first say that I stand corrected. In my clip of the Ole Miss player and the Arkansas running back, Ole Miss was penalized. I definitely see two hits with the crown of the helmet from the same player, and I also understand that ejecting a player is a tough call. There is lots of gray area. I'm just trying to figure out at what point did Wade (in the Vanderbilt game) draw the ejection? He immediately jumped up, and as he went towards the sidelines, kind of stiff body "posed" (kind of like a baseball player does after hitting a homerun, assuring a bean ball next time), but he did not hover over the downed player.
I think that this hit is so hard and so far outside what's legal, I'm sending the guy who throws it even if he's not targeted or used his head. He's not trying to play football.
-
SEC press release, which was posted sometime after I left for practice today:
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (Nov. 1, 2011) - Upon review of game tapes of the football game between the University of Arkansas and Vanderbilt University, played in Nashville, Tenn. on Saturday, Oct. 29, 2011, Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive has announced that Arkansas freshman Marquel Wade has been suspended for the Razorbacks’ next football game.
Arkansas hosts South Carolina this Saturday in Fayetteville.
Wade’s action was in violation of NCAA Football Rule 6-4-1 for a flagrant violation of interfering with an opportunity to catch a kick and NCAA Football Rule 9-1-3 for targeting and initiating contact with an opponent using the crown of his helmet. The play occurred at the 9:32 mark of the third quarter.
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.
_________________________________________________________
As for arthur's file, I think there should have been an ejection. While the first hit should have been a foul, it might not have been ejectable. The second one CERTAINLY was worthy of the rest of the day off.
-
I know you are a coach Blue, but try to keep up. ;D
According to the link below, he will be suspended for this week's game.
http://www.katv.com/story/15927241/wade-suspended-for-south-carolina-game
-
Arkansas has Vandy one more time in this rotation (assuming somethign radical isn't done before next year's expansion). Wade will probably get paid back next year with something worse than an ejection. We can safely assume Vanderbilt players are smart enough not to forget.
-
We can safely assume Vanderbilt players are smart enough not to forget.
I wonder whether they're smart enough to forgive.
-
I guess since OJ got off, we should never prosecute people for murder anymore.
Two flags: KPI and USC, both on Wade. Ejection.
Your gif: A pair of PF's for illegal use of helmet, one live-ball, one dead. With an ejection.
This really isn't that hard. You're just making it so.
I'm making this hard? My question was why wouldn't you eject on the gif? There was one penalty, for the late hit. No ejection. No second flag for use of the crown of the helmet at any time.
-
I'm agreeing that there should have been an ejection on the play your GIF illustrates.
But just because one crew failed to do its job doesn't mean the one on the Arkansas-Vandy game should have punted what Wade did (hence my allusion to an OJ exception).
They're both ejectable fouls and should have been treated as such. It's not that hard.
-
He was educated in Florida and New Jersey his first 19 years. We've only had him for 9 months. At least we have him saying "Yes, sir" instead of "yeah, man".
I noticed that as well. It's hard for a freshman to get up in front of a bunch of cameras & come off like a seasoned veteran.
-
I'm agreeing that there should have been an ejection on the play your GIF illustrates.
But just because one crew failed to do its job doesn't mean the one on the Arkansas-Vandy game should have punted what Wade did (hence my allusion to an OJ exception).
They're both ejectable fouls and should have been treated as such. It's not that hard.
tiphat:
-
I think the problem Arkansas fans are having is with the discretion as to what is a flagrant hit that deserves an ejection and suspension. From the rule posted in the OP I agree Wade should have been ejected. However, that doesn't seem to be what officialls normally do. In addition to the video AH posted, below are two other instances from SEC games this year that seem to also deserve ejections according to the rules stated by the SEC about Wade, yet neither one even drew a flag. It's odd that all three of these plays were allowed to go and did not bring an ejection, yet this one play by the Arkansas player suddenly did. It doesn't help that Curles' crew was suspended after missing some calls against Arkansas in a game two years ago, so most Arkansas automatically distrust him.
Helmet-to-helmet, with no flag -
(http://p.twimg.com/AdMax6JCAAI7lJU.jpg)
And then this one is almost exactly the same as the play Wade is ejected for, but not ejection that I am aware of. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHuuW8HySk
When Curles' crew has already been suspended for bad calls that hurt Arkansas in a big game, he's going to really catch grief for making a call that it seems other SEC crews are not calling.
-
I think the problem Arkansas fans are having is with the discretion as to what is a flagrant hit that deserves an ejection and suspension. From the rule posted in the OP I agree Wade should have been ejected. However, that doesn't seem to be what officialls normally do. In addition to the video AH posted, below are two other instances from SEC games this year that seem to also deserve ejections according to the rules stated by the SEC about Wade, yet neither one even drew a flag. It's odd that all three of these plays were allowed to go and did not bring an ejection, yet this one play by the Arkansas player suddenly did. It doesn't help that Curles' crew was suspended after missing some calls against Arkansas in a game two years ago, so most Arkansas automatically distrust him.
Helmet-to-helmet, with no flag -
And then this one is almost exactly the same as the play Wade is ejected for, but not ejection that I am aware of. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHuuW8HySk
When Curles' crew has already been suspended for bad calls that hurt Arkansas in a big game, he's going to really catch grief for making a call that it seems other SEC crews are not calling.
I'm not seeing a personal foul in the video. KCI, yes, but not a personal foul. The team B player comes in below the shoulders and doesn't hit with the crown of his helmet. As for the comments regarding Curles'. You have to remember that Curles is not the one throwing the flag on the play in the OP. There is a good chance that the officials throwing the flag are not the same ones who was on his crew 2 years ago.
-
I'm not seeing a personal foul in the video. KCI, yes, but not a personal foul. The team B player comes in below the shoulders and doesn't hit with the crown of his helmet. As for the comments regarding Curles'. You have to remember that Curles is not the one throwing the flag on the play in the OP. There is a good chance that the officials throwing the flag are not the same ones who was on his crew 2 years ago.
I guess we just see it differently, it seems pretty clear to me that he lead with the crown of his helmet into the Florida player's chest.
From the original post...
Wade was properly ejected for a flagrant foul becase he 1) targeted a defenseless player and 2) led with the crown of his helmet. The second one being the major reason for the ejection
It seems like the Alabama player should have been ejected, since he falls into same two categories as Wade.
As far as Curles, I understand what you're saying and I am not trying to imply anything about him, I'm just sharing the thought among many Arkansas fans, to help you see where they are coming from. I am not saying I agree, just that this opinion is where many fans are coming from. You also have to understand a lot of Arkansas fans(I am not in this group) are convinced of a conspiracy among SEC officials to protect Bama, Florida, and teams in a NC hunt and to hurt Arkansas. There are some pretty major occurrences that have led to this thought and while I understand the explanation for each one, it has still led to many Arkansas fans distrusting SEC officials. And it was Curles who failed to throw a flag on the helmet-to-helmet hit on Tyler Wilson shown above, which also does not help things.
-
A still photo is useless for making a judgment about a helmet to helmet call/no-call. Helmets hit all the time and that does not mean it is a foul. We have to judge if the helmet was deliberately used to first contact the opponent. Can't do that with a snapshot.
Attacking a punt returner is different than attacking a ball carrier. And players who are engaged in attacking punt returners (especially those who are returners themselves) should know there is extra protection given and gauge their actions accordingly
-
A still photo is useless for making a judgment about a helmet to helmet call/no-call. Helmets hit all the time and that does not mean it is a foul. We have to judge if the helmet was deliberately used to first contact the opponent. Can't do that with a snapshot.
Attacking a punt returner is different than attacking a ball carrier. And players who are engaged in attacking punt returners (especially those who are returners themselves) should know there is extra protection given and gauge their actions accordingly
Again, we can agree to disagree on the helmet to helmet, it's over and done.
But on the punt return, I don't see any difference between the Alabama player and the Arkansas player. I don't see how the Bama player wasn't ejected, much less suspended.
Thanks for the sophomoric Arkansas joke though, that helps things. Definitely gives credence to your opinion. ::)
-
I think the problem Arkansas fans are having is with the discretion as to what is a flagrant hit that deserves an ejection and suspension.
And then this one is almost exactly the same as the play Wade is ejected for, but not ejection that I am aware of.
Making calls off still photos is extremely unreliable. This looks like it could, COULD, be a foul. And not knowing when this photo was taken, it may not have been a foul at all at the time. This type of action, and what is or is not to be called as a foul, is relatively new and still changing.
Anyone looking at the Wade hit and your post could only unbiasedly say the two are almost exactly same because both involve KCI. The Wade hit is much more violent. Violence of the action is a huge consideration regarding flagrancy. Wade deserved to be tossed, no question.
The problem Arkansas fans have is they are Arkansas fans. Of course they see it the way they want to see it, that is in favor of their team. Just like Alabama fans see it, just like Florida fans see it, and just like any team's fans see it. The officials are the only ones out there who are (hopefully) unbiased and see it the way it is.
-
Lash - I understand from a fan's point of view it's difficult for them to grasp the concept that officiating is not an exact science. Reviewing videos frame-by-frame is always revealing but doesn't always appear to be what actually happens.
On the field these players are going so fast and contact happens so quickly, players run in front of us and MOST importantly we never get the camera eye view. We have to make judgments in an instant and everyone expects us to be perfect then improve from there.
And, I'm sure you understand that fans to have built in biases, that's why they are called fans! No matter what non-officials think or want to think, officials at this level truly are completely unbiased, have no dog in the hunt, and if they mess up too often, suffer embarrassing consequences.
Because of your obvious interest in officiating, you really should try it sometime - it's a great and fun avocation!!
-
You've got to remember, Mike, we Arkansans have a long history of being the victim of questionable officiating. We played for years in a league with 80% of the officials were Texans. We still get mad when discussing James Street's TD run aided by two uncalled block in the back penalties in the 1969 National championship game and the phantom pass interference call in favor of the SMU Pony Express in Texas Stadium in 1980. Our SEC bias starts in 1955 with Tommy Bell's bogus field goal call in an Ole Miss game and includes an offensive holding penalty that negated a field goal in the Liberty Bowl against Tennessee in the 80's.
-
Making calls off still photos is extremely unreliable. This looks like it could, COULD, be a foul. And not knowing when this photo was taken, it may not have been a foul at all at the time. This type of action, and what is or is not to be called as a foul, is relatively new and still changing.
Anyone looking at the Wade hit and your post could only unbiasedly say the two are almost exactly same because both involve KCI. The Wade hit is much more violent. Violence of the action is a huge consideration regarding flagrancy. Wade deserved to be tossed, no question.
The problem Arkansas fans have is they are Arkansas fans. Of course they see it the way they want to see it, that is in favor of their team. Just like Alabama fans see it, just like Florida fans see it, and just like any team's fans see it. The officials are the only ones out there who are (hopefully) unbiased and see it the way it is.
I'm confused by this comment about the still photo, I'm curious in what situation it would not be a foul to make contact with the QB's helmet with your own helmet. I can't think of a situation where that should not be a foul.
As to your last paragraph, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. I and many other Arkansas fans I have talked to understand and agree with the call on Wade. It's the numerous other examples of plays that seem to fall under the same rule but were not enforced that we have trouble with.
Lash - I understand from a fan's point of view it's difficult for them to grasp the concept that officiating is not an exact science. Reviewing videos frame-by-frame is always revealing but doesn't always appear to be what actually happens.
On the field these players are going so fast and contact happens so quickly, players run in front of us and MOST importantly we never get the camera eye view. We have to make judgments in an instant and everyone expects us to be perfect then improve from there.
And, I'm sure you understand that fans to have built in biases, that's why they are called fans! No matter what non-officials think or want to think, officials at this level truly are completely unbiased, have no dog in the hunt, and if they mess up too often, suffer embarrassing consequences.
Because of your obvious interest in officiating, you really should try it sometime - it's a great and fun avocation!!
I understand the point about it happening fast, and I'm sure that is the case in most of these instances. It is refreshing to hear you say this, it seems most officials share the opinion of TXMike that the officials calls are always right. I don't understand why so many have a hard time admitting that it is tough to make a quick decision and many time HUMAN officials get it wrong. That's not a criticism of officials as a whole, just a fact of life when dealing with humans who have to make very quick decisions.
-
As to your last paragraph, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. I and many other Arkansas fans I have talked to understand and agree with the call on Wade. It's the numerous other examples of plays that seem to fall under the same rule but were not enforced that we have trouble with.
I understand the point about it happening fast, and I'm sure that is the case in most of these instances. It is refreshing to hear you say this, it seems most officials share the opinion of TXMike that the officials calls are always right. I don't understand why so many have a hard time admitting that it is tough to make a quick decision and many time HUMAN officials get it wrong. That's not a criticism of officials as a whole, just a fact of life when dealing with humans who have to make very quick decisions.
The only volumes that says is that I don't care about other games as much as I care about hogs games, so I don't pay as much attention to what officials have to say about a game I didn't watch. Assuming anything else is a mistake on your part, but it wouldn't surprise me from what I have seen so far.
Do you pay attention? Have you ever even played football? Helmets hit all that time. That fact that they do does not automatically mean there has been a foul. That is why the still photo you gave is useless. Give us the video of that play.
Just because other players have not been ejected for what YOU perceive to be as serious a foul mwans nothing to the discussion. Perhaps the officials erred. In fact, for the past several years there has been more and more emphasis from above saying just that, there should be more ejections. Your guy fouled, he was ejected, and now he is suspended. For his sake we can only hope that is the end of it and someone does not seek retribution down the line.
-
I'm confused by this comment about the still photo, I'm curious in what situation it would not be a foul to make contact with the QB's helmet with your own helmet. I can't think of a situation where that should not be a foul.
Let's see, he could have been illegally blocked from behind into the QB, or he could've started the hit at the chest with his shoulder and riden up to this still photo. Point is you cannot tell what led to a still photo, so while inflamatory, it proves nothing.
Best regards,
Brad
-
I'm confused by this comment about the still photo, I'm curious in what situation it would not be a foul to make contact with the QB's helmet with your own helmet. I can't think of a situation where that should not be a foul.
As to your last paragraph, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. I and many other Arkansas fans I have talked to understand and agree with the call on Wade. It's the numerous other examples of plays that seem to fall under the same rule but were not enforced that we have trouble with.
The first part already answered by another. All I can say for the second part is if you and the other Arkansas fans think the clip you gave seems to come close to matching the Wade hit in severity and thus flagrancy, then it is clear to me you are biased in your evaluation. Which is ok because you are a fan and not an official.
Perhaps it's time to fully embrace the advise of my instructor when confronted with such questions and simply tell you "I saw the action and in your example although it is a foul it does not rise to the level of flagrancy and ejection. The Wade hit it does."
-
Let's see, he could have been illegally blocked from behind into the QB, or he could've started the hit at the chest with his shoulder and riden up to this still photo. Point is you cannot tell what led to a still photo, so while inflamatory, it proves nothing.
Best regards,
Brad
Thanks, that's what I was asking and even though I'm pretty sure none of those are the case I understand what you are saying as far as the still picture. I have tried to find a video but can't locate that play anywhere.