RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on December 18, 2011, 07:54:23 AM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGBKGq5Ept8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGBKGq5Ept8)
-
Looks intentionally thrown forward to me. ^flag
-
looks like a forward pass to me...
-
^flag
-
B45 intended to make a backward pass but failed to do so. To fumble is .. to lose possession by any act other than by passing ... Here, B45 knows more of his teammates are in the area and that the play is dead if he is tackled. He makes a good decision to make a backward pass but fails and makes a forward pass. ^flag Seems like R should have had a good look. LJ bags it, I suppose deciding it's a fumble.
-
Illegal forward pass. Tough play to get, though. In theory, the wing on that side (L, in this case) would be holding at the NZ, since the R is on that side of the holder (H would drop back to help cover the blocked kick). In this case, the L got off the line pretty well (not 'textbook' but potentially fortuitous, in this case), and appears very close, if not right on, the spot of the pass when it happens. Pass is released about the B-28 1/2, and hits the ground about the B-30 1/2, then picked up by B30. (BTW - ain't no way this is a fumble - its a pass, ladies and gentlemen. And he wasn't down before he released the pass, either.) L gets a bean bag down about the 30 1/2. Then everyone are off to the races.
If the H had dropped back at the snap and hustled, he should have been able to rule on the pass. We've seen tougher plays ruled successfully by the off-side guy. (BTW, the R 'shouldn't' be able to help - he should be leading the action down the field with a good five-to-fifteen yard leading cushion.)
If the L dropped his BB to further process the play before deciding pass or fumble, he could have come back and ruled an IFP, even after the play (although the BB should have been dropped at the spot of the pass, not the spot where B30 picked up the ball). Since it was a try, the spot of the pass would have been moot, since the LOD provision of the penalty would have ended the try (with the score canceled).
If the L dropped his BB because he was ruling fumble, well, aside from being incorrect, he missed the spot by two yards. Again, the spot would have been moot, in this case.
This would have been a tough play for any crew. Even if the crew is experienced in mechanics for a crew of 7, the H may not be accustomed to dropping back (at the snap) to help on a blocked kick, so he may not be there to help rule on the IFP.
Just goes to show that we have to focused and prepared on every play.
-
It may have been B45's intention, but I don't believe he actually "threw" the ball. And that is the criteria for passing.
Look at the interval of 1:14 to 1:17 in the video. It appears B45 loses firm possession of the ball and it goes forward, perhaps by ricocheting off his right forearm. I don't see him throwing the ball with his hand.
-
Looks like a IFP to me. I'm a HS official with only 4 years experience, so I have a question about the LOD provision that El Macman mentions - Since the foul was commited by B after a change of possesion, we wouldn't have a LOD, correct? But I agree the foul ends the try and takes the points off the board.
-
Kirby, this play occurred on a try. For NFHS, the try would be over when the kick failed: B cannot score during a try. Or maybe you weren't asking about NFHS?
This is clearly thrown, clearly forward, clearly IFP.
-
It may have been B45's intention, but I don't believe he actually "threw" the ball. And that is the criteria for passing.
Look at the interval of 1:14 to 1:17 in the video. It appears B45 loses firm possession of the ball and it goes forward, perhaps by ricocheting off his right forearm. I don't see him throwing the ball with his hand.
In that case, Illegal Batting! He definitely "propelled" the ball forward in some manner. I think he was trying to pass it to a teammate and lost the grip before getting it away. The result was he pushed/threw it forward. It certainly was no accident.
-
In that case, Illegal Batting! He definitely "propelled" the ball forward in some manner. I think he was trying to pass it to a teammate and lost the grip before getting it away. The result was he pushed/threw it forward. It certainly was no accident.
I don't think there is enough "intentional" to flag it as an illegal bat. When is question, it'd not a bat.
-
I don't think there is enough "intentional" to flag it as an illegal bat. When is question, it'd not a bat.
So, he doesn't "throw" it because he lost control before he tried to throw it backward. And he doesn't bat it because there's not enough to flag it as an intentional bat. So, the player who intended to throw it backwards and instead threw or propelled it forward benefits from many lucky coincidences? No, not buying. Illegal Forward Pass. ^flag
-
^flag
It is most clear that it is an infraction of some kind, albeit illegal forward pass, illegal batting, or whatever. If you take the time to closely analyze the video in slo-mo format, you can vividly see B45 in possession of the football while he is in the process of being tackled by A22. Just to the side of him as he is being taken down are teammates B30 and B23. B23 is seen visibly imploring B45 to pitch the ball, at which time the ball miraculously comes out in a forward motion into the waiting arms of B30 who then takes it the length of the field for the 2 point TD. In my minds eye, the motion and circumstances of the ball coming out of the ball carriers arms seems to clearly justify either an IFP or IB and really comes nowhere close to meeting the criteria of a fumble. And inasfar as the "When-In-Question" rules go, then I would have to hang my hat on 2-19-2-c which states that "when in question, the ball is passed and not fumbled during an attempted forward pass."
And if you should have any trouble into buying that observation, then I all I can do is to heartily suggest that you give someone named Dave Casper a phone call about it! z^
-
And inasfar as the "When-In-Question" rules go, then I would have to hang my hat on 2-19-2-c which states that "when in question, the ball is passed and not fumbled during an attempted forward pass."
I don't think that particular "When in question" applies to this situation.
The ball carrier was surely not attempting to a forward pass.
And, although it is not stated, I believe that "When in question" applies only to passers who are attempting a legal forward pass, i.e. behind the NZ. Beyond the NZ or when there is no NZ, many good officials say, "It's a backward pass or fumble and not a forward pass."
-
^flag
-
The ball carrier was surely not attempting a forward pass.
^flag
Sorry! There's just way too much compelling circumstancial evidence to rule this as being a fumble! As I had suggested earlier, try closely giving examination to this in slow-motion mode. z^
-
Kirby, this play occurred on a try. For NFHS, the try would be over when the kick failed: B cannot score during a try. Or maybe you weren't asking about NFHS?
This is clearly thrown, clearly forward, clearly IFP.
Thanks mb. Yep. in NFHS it is down over when the kick fails. I was just referring to LOD. B never has a LOD on IFP.
-
Ditto, illegal forward pass and it did not look too difficult to officiate the play.
-
I don't think that particular "When in question" applies to this situation.
The ball carrier was surely not attempting to a forward pass.
And, although it is not stated, I believe that "When in question" applies only to passers who are attempting a legal forward pass, i.e. behind the NZ. Beyond the NZ or when there is no NZ, many good officials say, "It's a backward pass or fumble and not a forward pass."
He may not have been attempting a forward pass, but he was attempting to pass it and because of how he went down it ended up being a forward pass. Therefor we have an IFP.
-
Looking at this in slo-mo I can see he lost possesion before the hand goes forward. Let's all think back to the players where we have a potentional passer who intends to pass the ball but is hit and the ball comes loose and we have the "empty hand". We rule those a fumble when it is the "empy hand". I think this is the same thing. He may have been intending to pass the ball but he lost possession before his arm went forward to pass it. I was at this game live watching and I was convinced at the time it was a pass, but after seeing this replay I have no problem with it being a fumble.
-
Well, IMO, that's what's wrong with viewing these in slo mo when we don't have IR in this game. The official on the field must make a judgement quickly without the benefit of slo mo replays. Without slo mo, this looks like an intentional pass, and then the question becomes is it forward or backward. It's obviously forward. Of course, we've all seen things on the field that we can't see on a TV so, I suppose it's possible that the covering official knew the player had lost possession prior to passing the ball.
-
^flag
Even in slo-mo, it still appears that the ball-carrier is using both of his arms/hands in losing the ball. No other defender is in any kind of position to have been able to knock the ball out of his possession. As you can clearly see, the tackler is well underneath the ball-carrier, so it's rather evident that he couldn't do it. I'm sorry, but this thing is not anywhere remotely close to being a fumble! I still say IFP! z^
-
I think it's a relatively easy IFP flag. But I think the "ease" of the call is in large part due to the fact that it was Team B trying to score on a try. i.e., they don't have much to lose.
But if this had been a regular scrimmage play, say Team A with 1/10 at their own 20, then it would be a little tougher to judge imo. Because your brain and eyes would be at odds. It still would LOOK like he pitched it, but the stupidity of such a move might make you think that it was a fumble.
-
I think it's a relatively easy IFP flag. But I think the "ease" of the call is in large part due to the fact that it was Team B trying to score on a try. i.e., they don't have much to lose.
So ... you're advising we use different standards for fouls/illegal acts based on the points that may/may not be scored on a particular play?
-
^flag
-
Not making excuses for the LJ but it looks like his vision to the ball carrier at the critical point may have been at least partially blocked by the two trailing SLC players. When the viewing angle is clear perhaps he calls what he sees; 1st ball carrier is now down but the ball is loose.
-
I believe a rule change is in order that changes the fumble rule on tries to include team B fumbles.
-
So ... you're advising we use different standards for fouls/illegal acts based on the points that may/may not be scored on a particular play?
haha no. :) just saying that sometimes we have to divine a player's intent. and when you have to do that, things like motive come into play. (granted, watching the video on a computer allows more time to consider the player's motives.)
-
^flag
No other defender is in any kind of position to have been able to knock the ball out of his possession. As you can clearly see, the tackler is well underneath the ball-carrier, so it's rather evident that he couldn't do it. I'm sorry, but this thing is not anywhere remotely close to being a fumble! I still say IFP! z^
Fumbles (loss of possession) can occur by other means than the ball being knock out by an opponent - for example, unsuccessful attempt to transfer the ball to another position.
As noted earlier in this thread, no question the loose ball goes forward. The issue is whether the ball carrier threw it. If he did, it's a foul. Just as with any foul, the calling official must see the foul occur before flagging it. "Seeing" this particular foul means actually observing B45 throw the ball. Do we unequivocally see him propel the ball from the palm on his hand/s? Even in slo-mo, I don't believe this video shows that.
-
So ... you're advising we use different standards for fouls/illegal acts based on the points that may/may not be scored on a particular play?
I think he is saying "use common sense."
And gee whiz... THAT is my twelve-hundreth post!
-
And gee whiz... THAT is my twelve-hundreth post!
aWaRd