RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: bctgp on January 01, 2019, 11:40:22 PM
-
Anyone catch the end of the Texas vs Georgia Sugar Bowl game and see the play where the following 3 fouls were announced:
1. Holding by Texas (who was team A)
2. Dead ball foul targeting foul on Texas - lead with crown of helmet on hit on Georgia QB after he started his slide.
3. Dead ball UNS on Texas
The R announced the live ball holding will be enforced from the previous spot and the DB PF for targeting will then be enforced afterwards with automatic first down for Georgia and the the DB UNS by Texas is declined.
Assuming the above was announced correctly...Why would the DB UNS be declined in this scenario - is that really what the Georgia coach decided? Wouldn't the officials should have explained to the coach that both can be enforced against Texas? Then this is a 10 yd penalty from previous spot against Georgia then mark off the PF for targeting (15 yds) plus another 15 yds for the DB UNS?
Did I miss something?
-
(You probably meant to say that the holding was by Georgia)
Going by the short sequence available on Youtube (which doesn't include the penalty announcement), if the UNS foul was against Texas, then yes, there is no reason to decline the UNS, and I even wouldn't give an option to decline. If the UNS was against Georgia, then the two DB fouls should have canceled.
Did the targeting call get upheld by replay? From the replays I saw there was no leading with the helmet nor forcible contact to the head/neck area (although it did look like there was on the first full speed view). Should have been reversed to a simple late hit (the QB had obviously started the slide when the defender committed to the tackle).
-
It was an unfortunate ending to what had been a somewhat unchallenging game for the crew. The initial TGT call was upheld but was correctly changed to being a DB foul. That meant enforce the hold by Georgia And then both DB fouls by Texas . The announcement got jacked up but the actual enforcement ended up being done right . ( the TGT call may be good fodder for discussion. As it was debatable)
-
Having watched it and the confusion surrounding the calls, I offer the following.
1) Holding against team A (Georgia)
2) The initial targeting foul was changed on review to a DB personal foul against B (Texas), no targeting.
3) This was followed by an unsportsmanlike conduct on B.
My confusion was that the referee announced, and enforced the holding foul against Georgia and the DBPF against Texas. He said the US foul was declined. If that is true, then Kirby Smart should be fired. Why turn down the additional 15 yards? Is that an NCAA rule?
-
Only thing I can guess is before the announcement the R got confused and thought only one DN foul against a team could be enforced so auto declined the 2d one. At the end of it all it WAS enforced so all ended well
-
Thanks folks, I did get my initial description wrong, the holding was by Georgia who was Team A here. Apologies. But I believe they still ejected the Texas player for TGT -- didn't they? The Referee did announce it anyway.
-
Yes , contrary to what many of us (including Bill L) expected, the TGT stood and he was DQd
-
The first announcement was that the OH and TGT offset, and then the UNS would be enforced.
After replay, the replay booth corrected the TGT to be a DB foul, but then the R announced the UNS was declined for some reason.
I wasn't paying close attention to the yard lines, so not sure if they ended up enforcing it or not.
-
Play started at B46. 10 yards for hold takes it to B36. 30 yards for 2 DB fouls takes it to A34. That is where it was next snapped
-
This is the uncut video of the sequence, showing real time elapsed time to handle and final result. https://youtu.be/Cp2bx3B3eHQ (https://youtu.be/Cp2bx3B3eHQ)
-
This is the uncut video of the sequence, showing real time elapsed time to handle and final result. https://youtu.be/Cp2bx3B3eHQ (https://youtu.be/Cp2bx3B3eHQ)
Ok, glad they ultimately got it right!