Arkansas Vandy Ejection play

[TXMike]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[TXMike]

"He" is the pooch.

[Diablo]

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?

[zebra99]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

  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.

[TXMike]

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.

[Diablo]

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?
 

[TXMike]

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. 

[Grant - AR]

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.

[zebra99]

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]

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.

[zebra99]

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?

[mbyron]

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...

[zebra99]

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.

[Welpe]

Considering the severity of the play, I'm sure we'll hear something about it soon.

[El Macman]

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.

[TXMike]

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?

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[Diablo]

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.

[zebra99]

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.

[TXMike]

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. 

[Diablo]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.