Wacky Punt Play (SMU- WA St)

[TXMike]

You make the call!

[yt=425,350]ShiDUAeqVx4[/yt]

[Welpe]

Looks like a touchdown to me assuming that the receiver didn't control the ball (hard to say from the camera shot).

[blindref757]

TD white...red blocked the defender into the receiver.

I'm guessing that they didn't call that???

I will say that the B does a good job in staying with the play.  That would be an easy one to quit refereeing on. 

[NTXRef]

Glad you caught this although it would be good to get other angles to see.   I was at the game and didn't like the call (my collegiate affliation has nothing to do with this I'm sure).   I thought the guy was pushed, but not toward to the rcvr, but to the side, and the defender still made effort to get at the rcvr.   BJ threw the flag, but was overruled by SJ.   They actually reviewed this (not sure on what grounds).  Is KCI reviewable?  Maybe, they were looking at who touched the ball when.  In any case, I thought the call was weak (certainly not cut and dry). Being blocked does not give you carte blanche on making the KCI.

On another note in this game, apparently DPI in EZ goes to the 1 and not the 2.   From the 2 1/2 there was an Offsides followed by DPI in EZ.  The officials declined the offsides and put the ball on 1 as accepted DPI.  My Dallas brethren on the box setup on the 2, tried to get the HL to listened to no avail and reluctantly went to the 1.  Confusing NCAA with Sunday?


 

[NVFOA_Ump]

On another note in this game, apparently DPI in EZ goes to the 1 and not the 2.   From the 2 1/2 there was an Offsides followed by DPI in EZ.  The officials declined the offsides and put the ball on 1 as accepted DPI.  My Dallas brethren on the box setup on the 2, tried to get the HL to listened to no avail and reluctantly went to the 1.  Confusing NCAA with Sunday?

They must have used the 2 yard line as the previous/enforcement spot and used the exception in the penalty enforcement statement in Rule 7.3.8?

If the previous spot was on or inside the two-yard line, first down halfway between the previous spot and the goal line (Rule 10-2-6 Exception).

On the possible KCI ruling that this was a "blocked into" looks pretty weak IMO.  The B defender clearly put his hand down to redirect his momentum toward the A receiver after a block that left him in no position to qualify for a "blocked into" ruling.

[foureyedzebra]

The thing that I can take away from this discussion is to know the position of the potential receiver in relation to the potential interferer and to know the direction of the force of the block.
Also to stay with the play after the block to rule on the actions of the blockee.

The blocked player was outside the inbounds marks and the receiver was inside them with the blocker between them when the blocker made contact with the blockee and the force of that contact was away from the receiver.

After the blockee was blocked, he reached outside the frame of his own body with his left hand and made contact with the receiver (which would have been difficult at best for the SJ to see).

On this play because of the above mentioned circumstances, IMO this does not qualify as blocked into.

That being said, from his angle, I can see how the SJ could have ruled blocked into.

The blocker ends up with his extended arms pointing in the direction of the receiver even though the force of the block was more East/West. The SJ does not have the luxury of the "bird's eye view" which clearly shows that the blocked player's angle changes slightly North/South (away from the receiver) immediately after contact and then he redirects his route into the receiver.