RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: golfingref on December 06, 2015, 03:21:00 PM
-
Did not see the play live, only on the recap show Sunday morning. From the highlights shown, no UNC player was over the restraining line. Can this not be reviewed and over turned if in fact there was no player offsides?
-
I'll go out on a limb and say, just like blocking became reviewable this year, this will be reviewable next.
-
I'll go out on a limb and say, just like blocking became reviewable this year, this will be reviewable next.
Unless it's completely obvious, I'd guess that 99% of those calls would be let stand. There's not a camera angle, IMO, that can show it clearly enough to overturn a call either way. Case in point, Michigan and Penn State last season.
-
They keep adding things to the list of reviewable with no guarantee there will always be a camera looking down a line (forward progress, goal line, line of scrimmage, restraining line, etc) to give the view that is needed. We have been through this before , parallax, will distort the view you get when you are looking "down a line" at an angle to the line.
In this specific situation, there is going to be lots for ACC and others to look at. Offside or not? Possible targeting (uncalled) by UNC on 1st onside kick and KCI by UNC (uncalled) on 2d onside kick.
https://youtu.be/j6oC270r30s
-
In this specific situation, there is going to be lots for ACC and others to look at. Offside or not? Possible targeting (uncalled) by UNC on 1st onside kick and KCI by UNC (uncalled) on 2d onside kick.
https://youtu.be/j6oC270r30s
Personal opinion (potentially clouded since I have a degree from UNC):
Not offside
Targeting
Not KCI
-
Why is it not KCI in 2d play?
-
Why is it not KCI in 2d play?
No fair catch signal that I saw, his protection ends immediately as soon as the ball is muffed.
-
But, grasshopper, why did he muff the ball?
-
OFK?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
OFK?
on who?
-
Nobody, hence the question mark. Don't know who the B called it on.
-
1a. Pretty clearly IMO not offside.
1b. I don't see anything that approaches targeting here.
2. KCI - Since this is a "one-hop" kickoff my current understanding is that the team B receiver must be allowed to complete the catch just as if the kick was originally airborne off of the tee. When he was hit by the team A player he was still in the air with possession of the ball and IMO had not yet had the opportunity to complete the catch.
-
The "targeting" chatter surrounds Blue #42
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If they are going to make it reviewable I suggest changing the rule to involve the position of the feet on the ground in relation to the line so you don't need a camera right down the line.
-
When he was hit by the team A player he was still in the air with possession of the ball and IMO had not yet had the opportunity to complete the catch.
Since he did not signal, KCI protection ends when the ball is muffed or touched by the Team B player. 6-4-1-b.
-
Do we agree that the Team A player was within a yard directly in front of the Team B player attempting to catch the kick BEFORE the kick was touched?
-
Since he did not signal, KCI protection ends when the ball is muffed or touched by the Team B player. 6-4-1-b.
Here's a play some of us probably remember.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQ7bl2nvP8
Let's imagine that the interfering player(s?) are instead approaching a yard or two off to the side of B25 at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock and do not interfere with his path towards the ball. B25 gains control over the ball, is hit with identical timing, and muffs it. Is that KCI?
If not, it seems entirely bizarre that in the clip as shown a player can complete a catch and be entitled to a kick catch interference call for opponents violating the no-go zone; but in a very very slightly different situation, he literally is interfered with by an opponent before completing the catch, interference which causes him to muff it, but that somehow isn't a kick catch interference foul.
-
Do we agree that the Team A player was within a yard directly in front of the Team B player attempting to catch the kick BEFORE the kick was touched?
I don't agree. Stop the video around 3:02 just as he touches the ball. The kicking team player is not in front of the receiver. Perfectly defended, in my opinion.
-
If A hadn't jumped to catch the ball and was simply standing still and the B player hit him with the the same timing as in this clip would we let that go?
-
The thing I see on the kick is there is only 3 players on one side of the kicker at the time of the kick
-
The thing I see on the kick is there is only 3 players on one side of the kicker at the time of the kick
On which play? The two UNC/Clemson kicks have valid numbers.
-
Since he did not signal, KCI protection ends when the ball is muffed or touched by the Team B player. 6-4-1-b.
However in this case wouldn't 6-4-1-e apply, in real time that looks bang/bang to me?
"It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball (A.R. 6-4-1-II, III, and VIII). When in question, it is an interference foul."
-
However in this case wouldn't 6-4-1-e apply, in real time that looks bang/bang to me?
"It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball (A.R. 6-4-1-II, III, and VIII). When in question, it is an interference foul."
I think it's very clearly not simultaneous contact. I think you would have a hard telling selling to a coach that you saw the hit and the ball arrive at the same time.
-
I would still like an answer on how it can possibly make any kind of sense that we're apparently saying that a player can catch the ball without being touched and still get a kick catch interference flag; and also attempt to catch the ball, get hit hard and forced to muff it, but not get a kick catch interference flag.
Can you imagine trying to explain this to a rookie official? Or any non-official who knows anything about football? Even by the skewed standards of the rulebook it defies all sense.
-
2. KCI - Since this is a "one-hop" kickoff my current understanding is that the team B receiver must be allowed to complete the catch just as if the kick was originally airborne off of the tee. When he was hit by the team A player he was still in the air with possession of the ball and IMO had not yet had the opportunity to complete the catch.
No, this is not what the rule was intending to prevent. The ball needs to be driven IMMEDIATELY into the ground - basically right in front of the tee - for the receivers to get protection. This was a "traditional" onside kick with the bounce happening at the 40, so no KCI protection.
-
Can you imagine trying to explain this to a rookie official? Or any non-official who knows anything about football? Even by the skewed standards of the rulebook it defies all sense.
I would agree - in real time there is virtually no measurable time from ball contact to defender contact. The B player is still in the air at the top of his jump when hit. I don't see any way that this gives B any reasonable opportunity to catch the kick as required by rule.
-
No, this is not what the rule was intending to prevent. The ball needs to be driven IMMEDIATELY into the ground - basically right in front of the tee - for the receivers to get protection. This was a "traditional" onside kick with the bounce happening at the 40, so no KCI protection.
Agreed, but I believe the KCI question was regarding the 2nd kick? The 2nd kick was a driven into the ground 1 high hop kick.
-
To be clear ,the possible KCI is on the 2d kick off not the first.
-
Interestingly enough(or not), the one flagged for OS recovered the kick.
-
This got posted to the wrong thread! Ignore.
-
On which play? The two UNC/Clemson kicks have valid numbers.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=unc+clemnson+onside+kick&view=detailv2&&id=2D5C3D5720D3E3A756404C6609356F1AAD4A35B1&selectedIndex=1&ccid=ntYUYAQk&simid=151141161740&thid=HR.151141161740&ajaxhist=0
Sure looks like only 3 men on one side of the kicker at the time of the kick to me.
-
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=unc+clemnson+onside+kick&view=detailv2&&id=2D5C3D5720D3E3A756404C6609356F1AAD4A35B1&selectedIndex=1&ccid=ntYUYAQk&simid=151141161740&thid=HR.151141161740&ajaxhist=0
Sure looks like only 3 men on one side of the kicker at the time of the kick to me.
It's the camera playing tricks on you. The person at the top is actually two people. Check the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq96fNcL0qI
-
Agreed, but I believe the KCI question was regarding the 2nd kick? The 2nd kick was a driven into the ground 1 high hop kick.
Ah, ok! Gotcha. Yes, the 2nd kick I would give KCI protection. That is immediate. However, I don't have a foul on this play. He did not signal fair catch, so his protection ends the moment he touches the ball.