RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on October 07, 2010, 09:34:29 PM
-
you make the call
[yt=425,350]FrdYlJXsB8U[/yt]
-
In full speed I think it looks worse than it is. In my opinion the contact is clearly from the side, but at full speed it is easy to throw the flag because it looks bad.
-
Absolutely not. Contact from the side and the blocker's head is even in front of the runner. This is not even close and there are two flags.
Furthermore, we don't flag things simply because they look bad.
I found the fact that the referee was smoked before the 30 yard line the most interesting. Worse, he was still slightly out of breath when he made the announcement. A good example of the need for fitness.
-
Undoubtedly not an Illegal BIB, but these are the toughest plays for any crew. No "standard mechanics" cover this so everyone's in a fire drill. Difficult to comply with the "see the whole play guideline" since if you did on this play it's clear that the blocker is out in front of, or maybe beside the defender when he makes contact. He was never behind him, which IMO supports the "we didn't see the whole play" problem.
We catch some part of the block (most likely the player going down part), make an assumption, and react with a "that looks like it must have been illegal" and throw. Have to see the whole play starting with prior to contact all the way thru the block, otherwise we need to keep it in our pocket. Also, as is the case here, the oft repeated "he landed face down so it must be a ...." just doesn't work here either.
-
Definitely a side block. Next year, however, I have 1st and 10 for Team B at about the A-17 yard line. >:D
-
I agree, no way. The blocked player even landed on his chest. I would hope that another crew member would at least try to talk to calling official(s) about this one!
-
Normally landing on one's chest WOULD be "proof" that one was blocked from behind but this is a great example of how that is not always the case. There were 2 flags and probably only 2 guys covering so who could talk them off?
-
In lacrosse, yes. Football, no. You think that point at the 2 yard line is worth a USC?
-
One o fthe effects of the change next year will be to make guys even slower to flag acts that are close. The penalty will be so severe, they may let things go they would have flagged in the past. This point sure does not look like flag worthy next year or this.
-
Truthfully, I am inclined to let the point go too. I just wanted to stir the pot a little. ;)
-
At first I thought you were implying that was how next year's "UIL Certified" officials would have enforced the penalty for the block in the back foul. LOL
-
as for a "bigger" potential block in the back...watch what happens near the goal line by white, what do we think of this block by the wideout...I know it would be declined anyway etc...but what do we think about it...
-
The R loses the race at the B-25 and is probably looking at the ball carrier anyway. Both wings were moving towards B's GL at the snap and, most likely, further back. No official is in front of the block, which is the only location to rule effectively. But that's the way it is after a change of possession and unhindered advance.
All the more reason to flag only train wrecks.
-
as for a "bigger" potential block in the back...watch what happens near the goal line by white, what do we think of this block by the wideout...I know it would be declined anyway etc...but what do we think about it...
No way am I flagging white 2 for that block.
-
No way am I flagging white 2 for that block.
nope me neither, but it is bigger than the other one LOL
-
Both guys only had one flag. If they wasted it on the white block they Would have not had it when they needed it for the later block.