Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
NCAA Discussion / Leaping
« Last post by ElvisLives on Today at 10:17:33 PM »
So, how about this:

Try, B-3.  B99 is at the B-1 1/2 at the snap.  After the snap, B99 runs forward and leaps over the shoulder of A55. The ball was muffed by the intended holder A88, passing through his hands and flying past him to the B-12.  As B99 is making his leap, the ball is on the ground at the B-12.  B99 lands at the B-3 1/2, as A88 and the intended kicker, A19, attempt to recover the ball.  A moment later, B99 successfully recovers the ball.

9-11-b says that it is a foul if a B player leaps to to try to block a field goal.  So, in this play, there wasn't a field goal attempt. Does that fact, in itself, mean there is no leaping foul (i.e., it is OK to leap over an opponent, unless you are trying to block an actual field goal attempt)?

Robert
2
NCAA Discussion / Re: Oklahoma St. - Texas Tech Lineman downfield
« Last post by ElvisLives on Today at 09:25:01 PM »
To validate this answer, understand the the officiating manuals used by all NCAA football officials is published by the Collegiate Commissioners Association(CCA).  That means they approve the Philosophies section of the manuals.

Now, to quote the pertinent statement from the Philosophies section of the CCA Manual: "If the passer is legally throwing the ball away out of bounds, near or beyond the sideline, do not penalize the offense for having ineligible players downfield."

The offense gains no advantage by having ineligible players downfield when the ball gets thrown away where virtually nobody has a chance to get to the ball.

Correct ruling by the crew.

Robert
3
NCAA Discussion / Re: Oklahoma St. - Texas Tech Lineman downfield
« Last post by Birddog on Today at 08:48:00 PM »
Same philosophy would apply if receiver is behind the LOS for a screen pass and pass is over-thrown and lands beyond the LOS.
4
NCAA Discussion / Re: Oklahoma St. - Texas Tech Lineman downfield
« Last post by TxBJ on Today at 08:05:33 PM »
I think it is in the philosophies section of CCA manual
Pretty sure you are correct.
5
NCAA Discussion / Re: Oklahoma St. - Texas Tech Lineman downfield
« Last post by TXMike on Today at 08:04:38 PM »
I think it is in the philosophies section of CCA manual
6
NCAA Discussion / Oklahoma St. - Texas Tech Lineman downfield
« Last post by 940AC on Today at 07:57:09 PM »
Linemen downfield late 2nd quarter.
Tech QB rolls out of pocket and throws pass away. Linemen well downfield, and R announces that due to QB out of the pocket, and pass was legally grounded there is no foul on the play for ineligible downfield.
Where is the ruling on this?
7-3-10 Ineligible Receiver Downfield has no exception I can find?
7
This definition from the rule book seems pretty unambiguous to me. Not sure how it can be interpreted to say that the hand does not have to clearly be above the receivers head to be a valid signal. I can understand the idea that it has been interpreted in different ways by different officials, but I would think that a rules test would say that it does. If not then someone needs to change the definition.

Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B: a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above);

OSU, I'm not getting your point.  Nobody is saying that a signal below the head is valid.  It isn't.  But, it would still be a signal, and any signal that isn't valid is invalid, and makes the ball dead when caught or recovered by the receiving team.  It is true that the invalid signal rule uses the language "waving." However, since that interpretation was issued many years ago, the "get away" signal has been modified by receivers to be only extending the arms, without the big waving we used to see.  Why?  There is no other reason than to try to confuse the kicking team.  It is still a "get away" signal.  While 6-5-3-V addresses a signal after the ball has hit the ground, this interpretation applies to any situation, before or after the ball has hit the ground or touched a player.  If a receiving team player makes a "get away" signal, I assure you, the coordinators will fully support their officials in declaring the ball dead when it comes into possession.

That doesn't at all address the NT/UA play.  That receiver did nothing but lift his arms to be in position to make the catch.  There was no "flailing," despite claims to the contrary.  The only issue is what happened after the catch.  By design, he made it look, for all the world, like he had made a fair catch signal and the play was over.  Kicking team players have been accustomed to easing up and not risking a foul when they see the receiver give himself up.  NT took advantage of that.  The NCAA powers have ruled this tactic - if executed this way - to be legal.  The Rules Committee will, undoubtedly, review this in the off season, on two accounts: 1) player safety (which may be dependent upon what happens during the remainder of this season), and 2) fairness and sportsmanship.  On this issue, metaphorically, the Committee has the ball, 1/10.

Robert
       
8
NCAA Discussion / Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Last post by TXMike on Today at 01:55:07 PM »
There is an AR That speaks directly to it and videos and clinics with Redding reinforced, the get away signal is an invalid fair catch signal
9
NCAA Discussion / Re: Arkansas needs some lessons in fair catch signals
« Last post by OSU65 on Today at 01:45:22 PM »
Doesnít have to be but Wasnít a wave anyway

This definition from the rule book seems pretty unambiguous to me. Not sure how it can be interpreted to say that the hand does not have to clearly be above the receivers head to be a valid signal. I can understand the idea that it has been interpreted in different ways by different officials, but I would think that a rules test would say that it does. If not then someone needs to change the definition.

Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B: a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above);
10
National Federation Discussion / Re: Patellar Tendinitis Tape
« Last post by CalhounLJ on Today at 01:06:46 PM »
What about K tape? Iíve seen it in the arms and calves. Where do we draw the line? I say let em play with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10