RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: JasonTX on December 21, 2010, 11:57:14 AM
-
Here is another video from Rom Gilbert's page. This is a challenging play to officiate. What is your view of this?
[yt=425,350]b1AMjGDMPbo[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1AMjGDMPbo
-
Well, he recovers the snap and immediately kicks it, so that speaks for the protection. But, he's sideways when he kicks, which would indicate a potential run. I think I'd prefer to have this flagged, but might personally pass on the flag in a real game.
-
Way to be definitive there and stake out a position!! You qualify to be a US politician.
-
There is reasonable doubt this kick will be made due to the snap hitting the protector #77 and kicker being forced after the loose ball outside the tackle box. Not a foul for roughing the kicker nor a UNR foul. Team A caused the problem, not Team B. Contact by Team B on the kicker should be deemed legal.
-
Looking cross eyed at a kicker should be a foul.
Breathing on a kicker should be a foul.
Speaking harshly to a kicker should be a foul.
This should have been a felony arrest.
-Atlanta Blue, Kicking Coach
-
There is reasonable doubt this kick will be made due to the snap hitting the protector #77 and kicker being forced after the loose ball outside the tackle box. Not a foul for roughing the kicker nor a UNR foul. Team A caused the problem, not Team B. Contact by Team B on the kicker should be deemed legal.
Amen!
By the way, Bill, Congrats!!!!
-
He lost his protection because he is clearly outside of the tackle box. Look at #50 at the snap and where the kicker ends up. He is at least 2-3 yards outside of #50 original position. No flag.
9-1-4-5. The kicker’s protection under this rule ends:
(b) When he carries the ball outside the tackle box (Rule 2-34) before kicking.
-
Could we just say for the sake of argument that he stayed inside the box and roughing was still possible by rule?
(I still got nothing unless the punter's been box-kicking like that all day, which is not entirely beyond the realms of possibility if he's from a Rugby Union background.)
-
He lost his protection because he is clearly outside of the tackle box. Look at #50 at the snap and where the kicker ends up. He is at least 2-3 yards outside of #50 original position. No flag.
9-1-4-5. The kicker’s protection under this rule ends:
(b) When he carries the ball outside the tackle box (Rule 2-34) before kicking.
#50 isn't a tackle, he's a guard. The "tackle box" extends another 2-3 yards past #50's position, making it close to where the contact took place.
The tackle box is defined as 5 yards on either side of the snapper. The ball is on the left hash, so the snapper extends another yard or so to the right. 5 yards from that spot is just short of midfield, right about where the contact took place. You can't use "outside the tackle box" as a reason not to throw the flag.
A kick might not be imminent? The punter was not holding the ball as a runner, he was extending his arms to drop it. That's pretty good evidence a kick was imminent.
Add to that the blocker's sole intent at aiming at the kicker's legs and not the ball and this becomes a good call.
-
Not a foul. Make this a pass - would we have Roughing the Passer? No. Can't penalize good defense.
-
Add to that the blocker's sole intent at aiming at the kicker's legs and not the ball and this becomes a good call.
I was thinking more along the lines that it appeared the "blocker" was moving in to make a tackle on what he thought was going to be a runner and not one that was diving to make a block. I don't think he knew a kick was going to be made. The kicker, in this situation needs to convice us that a kick is about to be made. This is where we have to judge whether or not he "re-established" himself as a kicker. I don't think the "blocker" saw enough to think a kick was going to be made.
-
Does the kicker do anything other than recover an errant snap? Does he take off and (9-1-4-a-5-b) carry the ball from inside the tackle box to outside the tackle box and then stop and do a quick kick? Which of AR 9-1-4-VI and AR 9-1-4-VII do you think this play falls into?
I think he simply recovers an errant snap and then kicks it as soon as he is able. It isn't simply about whether he outside the tackle box. He has to get possession inside and then carry it outside (ie start a run). This play doesnt look like that. Watching this play I have little doubt a kick will be made. I believe the spirit of 9-1-4 says he still gets the kicker protection.
-
He was sideways, definitely not in a normal punting position. Rock his world!
-
Surprised so many people are saying this isn't a foul. Total roughing in my opinion.
Bad snap. Punter bobbles it. Punter gains control and immediately kicks it.
Nothing in that sequence suggests that the kicker's protection should have ended.
He's facing sideways, but so what? Rugby style punters face sideways; so long as they dont carry the ball outside the tacklebox, they don't lose their protection.
Bad snaps, high snaps, muffed snaps, etc. are double edged swords for team B. Yes, their chances of blocking the punt--or tackling the punter before he punts the ball--increase. But it's a big risk/reward. Because if they whiff on the block, there's an increased chance that they'll rough.
-
Way to be definitive there and stake out a position!! You qualify to be a US politician.
Unfortunately I don't always make the call on the field I'd like myself to make :)
-
I have a no call. The kicker carries the ball outside the tackle box so protection ends. The center is snapping the ball from the hash and the middle of the field is 6 yards and a couple of feet from the hash which is where the kicker kicks the ball from.
-
For me, his body positioning isn't a problem as he is still in a position to make a half-decent kick.
However, the key is where he kicks it in relation to where he recovers it. He only has to move a yard or two to his right to pick it up (i.e. still inside the tackle box), then he carries it laterally until he's almost at the other hash before kicking it. As far as I'm concerned there's no foul... but that's only after watching the video a few times. If that happened to me on the field I get the feeling I'd probably end up flagging it, but that's mostly down to my inexperience in that position (2 games).
-
I've got no problem with the call. Ball is "dropped" for the kick when B player is still 4-5 yards away and still has plenty of time to change his path, and the ball is kicked and on it's way when he's still 2-3 yards away and the kicker is on his way back down after the kick. The "tackle box" issue is close so I'm going with the "he's still in the box" so that's not a factor in my mind. No downgrade on the call here IMO.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I don't see him re-establishing himself as a kicker. He is bobbling the ball around, and immediately drops it while still running towards the sideline.
From the angle of the D player, I don't think he could have even seen it being dropped - I think he was going for a tackle.
-
I don't see him re-establishing himself as a kicker. He is bobbling the ball around, and immediately drops it while still running towards the sideline.
From the angle of the D player, I don't think he could have even seen it being dropped - I think he was going for a tackle.
:o HE KICKED THE BALL. What else does he have to do to "establish" himself as a kicker? The ball is clearly gone when the rusher makes his move. ^flag
-
1st picture represents the point when I felt the kicker looked like he was going to kick the ball. 2nd picture represents the point when I felt the defender was committed to tackling the kicker. 3rd picture shows the ball about a foot off of the kickers foot. IMO the defender should have known a kick was imminent and at least pulled up. He made no effort to avoid contact. It was close but I support the flag. I would have also supported taking a pass on the flag. I had to look at the video several times in order to make a determination and none of us have that luxury on the field.
[attachment deleted by admin]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
:o HE KICKED THE BALL. What else does he have to do to "establish" himself as a kicker? The ball is clearly gone when the rusher makes his move. ^flag
A typical punter will receive the snap, adjust the ball, drop the ball, then kick the ball. He makes it well obvious that he is going to kick it.
In this play, the snap was bad, he muffed the ball to an area that may have been outside the tackle box. The rules allow for the ball to be muffed to outside the tackle backbox, and protection extended as long as he re-establishes himself. In my opinion to do that he will need to go through the motions just as a "typical punter" would. This kid had just barely recovered the ball and then immediately kicked it. I don't think he made it well obvious that he was going to kick it. Whichever decision you make on this play I would hope it would be supported and no downgrade regardless of flagging or not flagging it.
-
1st picture represents the point when I felt the kicker looked like he was going to kick the ball. 2nd picture represents the point when I felt the defender was committed to tackling the kicker. 3rd picture shows the ball about a foot off of the kickers foot. IMO the defender should have known a kick was imminent and at least pulled up. He made no effort to avoid contact. It was close but I support the flag. I would have also supported taking a pass on the flag. I had to look at the video several times in order to make a determination and none of us have that luxury on the field.
Did you notice the time stamps in your photos? The entire action took less than a second....not much reaction time for a defender.
-
:o HE KICKED THE BALL. What else does he have to do to "establish" himself as a kicker? The ball is clearly gone when the rusher makes his move. ^flag
While I agree, if the player does not kick the ball, there can not be a roughing/running foul. But, the converse is not always true. Just because a player kicks the ball, he is not automatically granted protection from roughing/running into.
Example: Third and 15 from the A-4. With the QB under center, the snap goes directly to the tailback. The tailback kicks the ball, immediately after which he is tackled via his plant leg.
-
1st picture represents the point when I felt the kicker looked like he was going to kick the ball. 2nd picture represents the point when I felt the defender was committed to tackling the kicker. 3rd picture shows the ball about a foot off of the kickers foot. IMO the defender should have known a kick was imminent and at least pulled up. He made no effort to avoid contact. It was close but I support the flag. I would have also supported taking a pass on the flag. I had to look at the video several times in order to make a determination and none of us have that luxury on the field.
Did you notice the time stamps in your photos? The entire action took less than a second....not much reaction time for a defender.
I agree there wasn't much time. In fact, the only reason I even considered the contact deserving of a penalty on the defender was he shouldn't have been surprised when the ball was kicked.
-
AR 9-1-4-VI
Kicker A1, in a scrimmage kick formation, moves laterally two or
three steps to recover a faulty snap, or recovers a snap that went
over his head and then kicks the ball. He is contacted by B2 in
an unsuccessful attempt to block the kick. RULING: A1 does not
automatically lose his protection in either case unless he carries the
ball outside the tackle box. While in the tackle box A1 is entitled
to protection as in any other kicking situation. When it becomes
obvious that A`1 intends to kick in a normal punting position,
defensive players must avoid him.
After recovering a muffed snap how could anyone possibly assume a normal punting position when for certain there would be 1 or 2 defensive players bearing down on him ?
-
If you look at the ARs, they take Team B off the hook in two cases:
1. When Team A punts from a non-scrimmage kick formation
2. When Team A carries the ball outside the tackle box.
Neither of those apply here. (Yes, when the punter gains control of the ball he takes a step, and it is close to the tackle box. But clearly this doesn't fit the move of taking the ball outside the box like a runner.)
Moreover, there's an AR in which the punter muffs the snap; and he doesn't lose his protection by virtue of having muffed it.
As for "normal punting position": recovering a muffed snap and then kicking it is not a departure from normal, in my opinion. I believe the phrase is intended to take away protection from the punter who takes the snap and cocks his arm as if to throw. Or starts running up the middle as if to attempt to make the line to gain.
I think it's incorrect to say that muffing a snap or recovering a bad snap means that it's no longer reasonably obvious that a kick will be made. Yes, the defense might tackle the punter before he has a chance to kick it. And good play by them if they do. But it's twisting the logic to say: "Well, I thought I could prevent the kick, therefore it wasn't obvious that a kick would happen." :o
-
Does anyone remember which bulletin it was that stated if the snap is muffed to outside the tackle box, that the kicker would then have to "re-establish" himself as a kicker?
-
Does anyone remember which bulletin it was that stated if the snap is muffed to outside the tackle box, that the kicker would then have to "re-establish" himself as a kicker?
Bulletin #1 from 2009 talks about a muffed ball recovered outside the tackle box.
Fourth and 10 at the A-10. A33 is in deep punt formation to receive the long snap. (a) A33 receives the snap, carries the ball outside the tackle box and (i) kicks the ball rugby-style on the run or (ii) establishes himself as a kicker and punts the ball in the normal fashion. (b) A33 muffs the ball which goes outside the tackle box, where he recovers, establishes himself as a kicker, and punts the ball in the normal fashion. In all cases end B80 dives and crashes into A33’s plant leg immediately after the ball is kicked.
RULING: (a) In both (i) and (ii) there is no foul for roughing the kicker because A33 carries the ball outside the tackle box before kicking. (b) Foul by B80 for roughing the kicker. A33 did not carry the ball outside the tackle box. First and 10 for Team A at the A-25. (9-1-4-a-5-b)
-
My rational goes a follows: -
We are in an obvious kicking situation at the snap and team B know this therefore the kicker has protection until he loses it by his actions.
To lose protection in this scenario he must carry the ball outside the tackle box.
To me, carry means at least one complete pace in possession and my judgement from the video is that he does not do so. ^flag
-
#50 isn't a tackle, he's a guard. The "tackle box" extends another 2-3 yards past #50's position, making it close to where the contact took place.
The tackle box is defined as 5 yards on either side of the snapper.
It was my understanding, I have to look for it, that the tackle box is extended from the "middle lineman" NOT the snapper. I am pretty sure there was a bulletin on this last year after the rulebook was printed(can anyone help me on this?)
If I am correct, then he IS outside the tackle box.
-
It was my understanding, I have to look for it, that the tackle box is extended from the "middle lineman" NOT the snapper. I am pretty sure there was a bulletin on this last year after the rulebook was printed(can anyone help me on this?)
If I am correct, then he IS outside the tackle box.
Here is the appropriate memorandum:
NCAA Memorandum: Clarification of Blocking Zone and Blocking Below the Waist
Friday, September 04, 2009
Input from several head coaches and discussions among coordinators of officials have
drawn attention to the need for clarification of the blocking rules as they relate to
player safety. Experience in the summer scrimmages demonstrated that action which was
illegal in 2008 had inadvertently and unintentionally become legal through the way in
which the blocking zone and blocking below the waist are defined in the 2009-2010 rule
book. The clarification of the rules language below, which has the endorsement of the
coordinators of officials, is intended to clarify the committee’s intent regarding blocking
action that impacts the safety of the student athlete. This language appropriately frames
the blocking zone to account for an unbalanced line, and it also specifies in more detail
the restrictions for blocking below the waist by a player in the offensive backfield.
Clarification of Rule: Blocking Zone and Blocking Below The Waist
• Re-define blocking zone (2-3-6-a, FR-45)
“The blocking zone is a rectangle centered on the middle lineman of the offensive
formation and extending….”
(Bold-faced words replace “snapper”)
• Re-phrase the “crack-back” block rules (Rule 9-1-2-e-1 and 2, FR-117)
“1. Offensive linemen at the snap positioned more than seven yards from the middle
lineman of the offensive formation are prohibited…”
(Bold-faced words replace “snapper”)
“2. Backs at the snap positioned with the frame of their body completely outside the right
or left of the blocking zone or completely outside the frame of the body of the second
lineman from the middle lineman of the offensive formation in either direction toward
a sideline, or in motion at the snap…”
(Bold-faced words are new language)
Thank you for your attention to this information. If you have any questions regarding this
memorandum, please contact secretary-editor Rogers Redding (rredding@sec.org).
Mike Bellotti, Chair NCAA Football Rules Committee
Rogers Redding, Secretary rules-editor NCAA Football Rules Committee
-
I would suggest that we want to pay careful attention to detail here. When the rules were rewritten there was a clear distinction drawn between the tackle box and the blocking zone. In the current 2009-2010 rulebook they are not the same thing. The referenced "clarification" memo was in regards to blocking action and the rule definition of the Blocking Zone. The kicking rules use the term Tackle Box. Note that they are not the same according to the current rules and the referenced memo notes some additional differences. The Blocking Zone now uses the term "MIDDLE LINEMAN" (replacing the term SNAPPER) while the Tackle Box still has the "SNAPPER" in the middle.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Bulletin #1 from 2009 talks about a muffed ball recovered outside the tackle box.
Fourth and 10 at the A-10. A33 is in deep punt formation to receive the long snap. (a) A33 receives the snap, carries the ball outside the tackle box and (i) kicks the ball rugby-style on the run or (ii) establishes himself as a kicker and punts the ball in the normal fashion. (b) A33 muffs the ball which goes outside the tackle box, where he recovers, establishes himself as a kicker, and punts the ball in the normal fashion. In all cases end B80 dives and crashes into A33’s plant leg immediately after the ball is kicked.
RULING: (a) In both (i) and (ii) there is no foul for roughing the kicker because A33 carries the ball outside the tackle box before kicking. (b) Foul by B80 for roughing the kicker. A33 did not carry the ball outside the tackle box. First and 10 for Team A at the A-25. (9-1-4-a-5-b)
Does that imply that if the ball was recovered in the tackle box (within 5 yards of the snapper) that if (i) kicks the ball rugby-style on the run or (ii) establishes himself as a kicker and punts the ball in the normal fashion, then the kicker is therefore protected in both cases ?
-
This is a judgment call just as in any other situation regarding the roughing or running-into foul. That he kicks in a rugby manner changes nothing. The key is whether it is obvious that a kick will be made, and the referee's judgment will take this into account.
Rogers Redding
Secretary-Rules Editor
NCAA Football Rules Committee
-
So we have two potential politicians in one thread!!!!!
I agree with my countryman (With Two Flakes) that the kicker has done nothing to suggest he will not kick the ball and the defender must respect that. It is clear the NCAA give the kicker even more protection than a passer (we have a 5 yard penalty for bumping him from his position) and so I believe if in doubt you give the kicker the benefit.
I personally dislike Rogers Redding's answer as it gives no certainty and that leads to confusion as we can see from this thread there are lots of opinions. If we say that as long as he does nothing but kick the ball then everyone knows how the rule will be called. Alternatively if we say whenever the kicker does not immediately kick the ball after the snap we cannot have roughing again we have certainty. I would like Rogers to say one way or the other so we have clear guidance but without a clear statement we have to do what we believe is best.
I guess at present if any of us see this play on a field 50% will have roughing and 50% will have nothing.
-
first - I don't beleive he "carried" the ball outside the tackle box - second, we need not get too technical here, pure judgment by the R, was he "threatening" to run rather than kick or was he showing kick all they way after recovering the ball? The intent of the carry out rule, as we all know, is the rugby style kicker who could easily turn the play into a run, thus no roughing the kicker protection.
I agree with the R on this one - he's right there and I see no action by the kicker that suggests his is not intent on kicking the ball after recovery. We are told to err on the side of safety so the "debate" on this board, pushes me in that direction as well.
-
There are a few things (but not many) the NFL does better than us. This is one of them. In the NFL game, if the snap hits the ground, all bets are off.
-
Agreed - that should be added to the present rule.
-
There are a few things (but not many) the NFL does better than us. This is one of them. In the NFL game, if the snap hits the ground, all bets are off.
But do you really want to give the defense carte blanche if the punter is in deep kick formation & simply drops the ball, then immediately picks it up?
-
He doesn't have carte blanche, but the beauty of the rule is that takes away a lot of judgement and makes it easier to be consistent.