RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on November 29, 2010, 08:49:24 PM
-
Question was raised about this call and video was requested. Looks like a good call to me.
[yt=425,350]P0SiNraRWyQ[/yt]
-
Sounds like the announcer disagrees with ya Mike.
-
1st time for everything I guess....
-
Gotta love the talking heads. One rule of thumb we have is this...
If you are in doubt on KCI and the receiver catches the ball... no flag ^no
If you are in doubt on KCI and the receiver muffs the ball... flag ^flag
If you have no doubt on the play, then flag it or not depending on what happened.
IMO on this play, there is definitely a doubt, and since he muffed the kick, I would agree with the flag.
-
I would not have a flag here, with or without a catch. Incorrect call, in my opinion.
-
I would not have a flag here, with or without a catch. Incorrect call, in my opinion.
I have to agree. I do not have a foul here.
-
Don't have video, but compare and contrast to a similar play in the Georgia-Georgia Tech game (approx 7:00 mark of the 3rd qtr if Mike happens to have the video).
-
I actually disagree...I think the B did an excellent job here. He waited to see if the catch was made to invoke, no harm no foul, but to me the A player did not give the B player an unimpeded chance to catch this ball, nor did he give him a chance to make a football move.
Just my opinion.
-
I think it is a foul but I think it is a foul regardless of whether the ball is caught or not. I know different conferences are saying different things but Parry/Redding have been pretty clear that whether or not the ball is caught should not play into our decision making on this call.
-
If I listen to the 400,000 fans of Bronco football here in Boise, it was a horrible call. I happen to think it was way to close to decide one way or the other. Had to be there, see it in real time and then make the call. I know this B and would go with him every time, so ^flag
-
Item 4 from the latest set of bulletins:
4. Punt receiver B44 is standing at his 30-yard line in position to catch the kick. Defender A11 races down the field to cover the punt. B44 does not give a fair-catch signal. Immediately after B44 catches the ball, A11 tackles him.
RULING: No foul for kick-catch interference. Without giving a fair-catch signal, B44 has no protection once he catches the ball. (6-4-1)
This appears to be a shift in what the previous guidance was (despite what some conferences were directing). What is not clear from this ruling is what to do if B44 does NOT catch the ball.
-
RULING: No foul for kick-catch interference. Without giving a fair-catch signal, B44 has no protection once he catches the ball. (6-4-1)
This appears to be a shift in what the previous guidance was (despite what some conferences were directing). What is not clear from this ruling is what to do if B44 does NOT catch the ball.
Just "curious": I thought the receiver had the right to complete the catch in NCAA. Is that only after a FC signal? If it is, then I see KCI; but, if not, then it looks like a "bad" call.
(In HS, this would NOT be KCI)
-
6-4-1 covers KCI:
A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1:III) (A.R. 6-4-1:V and X)
a. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground, when any player of Team B muffs a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team B muffs a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone (Rule 6-5-1-a) (A.R. 6-4-1:IV)
b. If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being blocked by an opponent, it is not a foul.
c. 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, VII and IX) When in question, it is an interference foul.
And 6-5-1 makes an additional provision for fair catches:
a. When a Team B player makes a fair catch, the ball becomes dead where caught and belongs to Team B at that spot.
b. When a valid fair catch signal is made, the unimpeded opportunity to catch a free or scrimmage kick is extended to a player who muffs the kick and still has an opportunity to complete the catch. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground. If the player subsequently catches the kick, the ball is placed where it was first touched (A.R. 6-5-1:I-IV)
-
Does a muff require the ball hitting the ground?
Because when R was hit, the ball was barely not in his possession, and way before it hit the ground.
I don't believe that this is a foul in the NFL since there was not a FC signal given. Curious stated that it is not a foul in HS. It'd be interesting if this is a foul in NCAA, but not in the other two codes.
-
Does a muff require the ball hitting the ground?
Not under NCAA rules - As noted in another thread, it's in the most important rule: 2-10 Muff ARTICLE 2. A muff is an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover a ball that is touched in the attempt.
This was a muff as the ball was clearly on it's way to the ground before contact. The judgment that has to be made here is did the defender comply with 6-4-1 that requires that the receiver " ..... must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick." It's razor close IMO, and I'm not going to 2nd guess the call. IMO this one is in the "50% would call it, 50% would let it go" category, and I don't think that the supervisor would disapprove of either call.
-
I don't know if I would call it on the field - mostly because I don't know if I could see and process it correctly (I work up on the LOS), but looking at the video I like the call.
IMHO the R was in the process of catching the ball as he got hit. He had not made the catch.
-
Not under NCAA rules - As noted in another thread, it's in the most important rule: 2-10 Muff ARTICLE 2. A muff is an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover a ball that is touched in the attempt.
This was a muff as the ball was clearly on it's way to the ground before contact. The judgment that has to be made here is did the defender comply with 6-4-1 that requires that the receiver " ..... must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick." It's razor close IMO, and I'm not going to 2nd guess the call. IMO this one is in the "50% would call it, 50% would let it go" category, and I don't think that the supervisor would disapprove of either call.
Well said.
However, Let's say you are the grader evaluating this game. You have two choices. CC(Correct Call) or IC ( Incorrect Call). Marginal Call is out because this is either Correct or Incorrect. Which on do you go with? Don't forget you have both coaches, I'm sure, calling the supervisor and complaining.
Good play.
-
2-10 Muff ARTICLE 2. A muff is an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover a ball that is touched in the attempt.
This was a muff as the ball was clearly on it's way to the ground before contact. The judgment that has to be made here is did the defender comply with 6-4-1 that requires that the receiver " ..... must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick." .
Thanks for the rule references guys; but I'm still a little confused. As I look at the play the receiver did not signal for a FC, muffed the ball, and got hit. This scenario seems to line up with 2-10 (as "ump" points out) and 6-5-1a (as pointed out by "Pureheart").
But rule 6-4-1 says "unimpeded opp to catch...". Does that mean opp to complete the catch? If so, why not say "complete"; and why even mention a muff? Why not say the same thing as in the FC interpretation?
MJT points out some guidelines regarding "doubt" and a catch or muff. Are these NCAA or a specific conference's guidelines? This seems to be a "bail out" clause. You get into position, observe what happens, and make (and then live with) the call
I think, in this play, the receiver chose not to give up his return of the kick by not calling a fair catch and the kicking team player timed his "arrival" perfectly (not before touching but after the muff), and the KCI call clearly penalized an excellent play.
-
The fair catch rule is relatively easy - this one is a pure judgment call. We need to decide if the receiver have enough TIME & SPACE to have had an " ..... an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick." If yes no flag, if no then we need a flag.
-
This was clearly a foul if we were in the "halo" days. When the halo rule was taken away I do not recall any explanation that said it was taken away as it gave too much protection to the returner. My recollection was that it was changed because it was too inconsistetntly applied. The change resulted in more confusion so they started talking about the returner making a "football move" before he could be hit. But now the bulletin this year is casting doubt on that.
-
CC
-
The change resulted in more confusion so they started talking about the returner making a "football move" before he could be hit. But now the bulletin this year is casting doubt on that.
Yikes! Good luck all you NCAA BJs.....
-
That is why we get paid extra ^TD
-
KCI protection (sans valid fair catch signal) lasts until the kick bounces or is muffed. In the video, the defender causes the muff. Ergo, he has committed KCI prior to said muff.
KCI is not like DPI. On a forward pass, a defender can obviously interfere with a receiver after a pass has been touched. Causing the receiver to muff the pass is in fact textbook defense. But that's not what the KCI rule says. If you prevent the kick returner from catching the kick, and he didn't muff it FIRST, then you are guilty. For KCI it doesn't matter if the ball got there a nanosecond earlier. KCI doesn't even require contact.
The timing can be a judgment call. But we're used to ruling on passes that are incomplete versus caught-and-fumbled. To me the criterion for KCI is identical. Simply make the judgment call on whether the kick was muffed or fumbled. That will tell you whether the catch was interfered with or not.
-
KCI protection (sans valid fair catch signal) lasts until the kick bounces or is muffed. In the video, the defender causes the muff. Ergo, he has committed KCI prior to said muff.
But some of us would offer that the "the defender causes the muff" only in the sense that the receiver clearly takes his eyes of the ball and looks at the oncoming defender before he has caught the ball. The clip clearly shows, although timing is tight, that the ball is past his hands and going through his arms to the ground before there is any contact. There was not going to be any "complete the catch" on this one before the ball hit the ground, and that was not caused by or the result of defensive contact. Can't really debate right call or wrong call here since IMO this is one of the 50/50 calls, but we certainly can get a better understanding of how tough these close calls are and how critical mechanics and positioning are when trying to get it right.
Would we have had a flag if the receiver simply caught the ball clean against his chest and was tackled immediately for no gain on the return?
-
The way the removal of the halo was explained to me (by a senior BigTen White Hat) was that the NCAA Rules Ctte was not happy that so many technical 5 yd KKI penalties were being given because a Team A kid had slightly entered the halo, eg running past the KR before the ball arrives. So they rewrote that rule to try to eliminate those instances.
Furthermore I was told that while there is no longer a halo, that 2 yards in the front sector of the KR remains a good starting point in your decision on whether the KR has an unimpeded chance to make the catch.
Watching the film, I thought KCI straight away. That KR has gotta be blind and deaf if he doesn't realise that the Team A kid is directly in front of him. Pause the Youtube footage of the replay at about 0:57. When the KR first gets hands on the ball, the head and shoulders of the Team A guy are about a foot away. That sure as h*ll would put me off making the catch, and I figure likewise for that KR.
Ask yourself this. If this play had happened under the old 2 yard halo rule - would you have had a flag? Sure you would.
-
But some of us would offer that the "the defender causes the muff" only in the sense that the receiver clearly takes his eyes of the ball and looks at the oncoming defender before he has caught the ball. The clip clearly shows, although timing is tight, that the ball is past his hands and going through his arms to the ground before there is any contact.
You know, you're right. I wrote that without watching the slow-mo replay. The full-speed shot makes it look like the ball comes out upon contact.
Would we have had a flag if the receiver simply caught the ball clean against his chest and was tackled immediately for no gain on the return?
Not according to that NCAA bulletin.
-
I understand that the rule combined with the interpretations is confusing. What I dont understand is why it is so hard to write thea rule since the receiver has the opportunity to call for a fair catch. If the receiver signals for a fair catch, the defender should not interfere in any way. If he doesnt give the signal, the defender can't beat the ball to the receiver (or commit a foul against a defenseless player).