RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: Timer on January 08, 2012, 10:02:29 PM
-
Said opening KO wasn't touched. Why didn't they rule ball dead when it touched in the end zone and not let receiving team pick it up and run it out. Wouldn't have made any difference, but just saying.
Crew said that on a first down play it couldn't be reviewed since forward progress had been ruled. Do what? Runner was stopped a full yard from line to gain. That's the one time RO "CAN" review forward progress.
Had a roughing the kicker called when it looked like the Ark. St. guy was blocked into the kicker. Not sure about that call, but will defer to R as he is the one on the field. Maybe Mike call pull up a video of it for discussion purposes.
Can't wait to see what happens in the second half. :)
-
Saw most of the first half and parts of the second half.
As to the opening KO, the kick was touched by R player in field of play. Ball then continued into EZ. R player picked it up and tried to run it out but was tackled in the EZ. R has to al least get on the ball. Kick was still live when he picked it up deep in the EZ. He can still attempt to run it out but he does not have to get it out of the EZ. R was not responsible for the ball being in the EZ, it remained a kick and the impetus that put it in the EZ was the kick. Even though it looks funky, it is still just a touchback.
As far as the play regarding the LTG and forward progress, this play IS reviewable. Even though the H ruled that forward progress was stopped and the player pushed backwards, any spot whether ruled down or forward progress spot (not ruled down) is reviewable if it involves the LTG. Instant Replay Casebook Play 38 (pg. 17) states that play is reviewable regarding whether runner made the LTG when he was ruled down. IMO the replay official should have gotten involved even though the R made the announcement that it was not reviewable. The challenge by Arkansas State should have been allowed and IMO the ball would have gone over to Arkansas St. It was 1 yd short of LTG from the view shown on TV. Not sure what views that replay got though.
Lastly, in regards to the RFK foul, did not see this one but this call by all R's is still judgement. The block into the kicker by rule potentially takes the responsibility off of roughing foul, but if in the opinion of the R that the roughing was severe enough, he can still rule roughing. IMO, if kick blocker left his feet (diving) and impact of offensive blocker was minimum and kick blocker hit plant leg of kicker severly, then I would still rule RFK. Have to see the play though.
-
Re the RTK, the defender ends up head butting the kicker....pretty clear from the couch.
Best regards,
Brad
-
Have all the plays clipped and will try to post before the "Big Game" tonight.
re the roughing the kicker...it seemed to me the defender tried to take advantage of the fact he was blocked and purposely directed himself into the kicker. And as Luke Skywalker noted, he even added soe helmet action. Did you see the way his coaches got on him on the sideline? They knew he screwed up. the punter did flop also but the foul was there regardless.
-
Do you have a clip of the KCI early in the game along with the actual enforcement? I do believe there was an IW on the play.
-
The roughing the kicker call where defender possibly went high: http://youtu.be/RhtYGSp4f28 (http://youtu.be/RhtYGSp4f28)
-
The KO play where ball was touched in field of play be B and then went to EZ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHW1jpg46oA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHW1jpg46oA)
-
The punt play with KCI which may have had an IW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ6AgPUfGLY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ6AgPUfGLY)
-
That RTK is textbook. Extra force clearly added, possible lid-to-lid. Great call.
-
What about the forward progress that "couldn't" be reviewed... You know, in your spare time... :D
-
I am way underpaid!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SivqP2SHxM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SivqP2SHxM)
-
:bOW
-
The KO play where ball was touched in field of play be B and then went to EZ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHW1jpg46oA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHW1jpg46oA)
It also looks like they missed a BIB by #22 WHITE in the end zone.
-
You could make an argument that was nt a foul as he was either going to get the ball or the runner
-
It's actually #23 White, and I don't see any reason that shouldn't be a foul. He blasts #30 Black after the returner has possession of the ball, so he wasn't trying to get to a loose ball anymore.
-
Definitely a missed Block in the Back by #23 in the EZ. That has to be the Ls call?
-
It's actually #23 White, and I don't see any reason that shouldn't be a foul. He blasts #30 Black after the returner has possession of the ball, so he wasn't trying to get to a loose ball anymore.
Then he is trying to get to the runner
-
"Then he is trying to get to the runner".... I need to remember that one for my TAs when questioned for a no-call on the most over officiated rule in FB!
-
Then he is trying to get to the runner
He is allowed to PUSH an opponent in the back in trying to reach a runner. While he MIGHT have been trying to reach the runner, you would be hard pressed to call this a "push". He blasted the opponent.
-
This is football That is a football push
-
You either have a PF or nothing in this situation... not going to get much support for a 10-yard type foul on the defense here. My opinion...don't go looking for stuff like this unless the action is unnecessary. And if you rule that it is, then by definition it's a personal foul. First line of Rule 9.
-
Do you have a clip of the KCI early in the game along with the actual enforcement? I do believe there was an IW on the play.
The only whistle I heard was after the kick had (forgive me) "come to rest" with no one attempting to recover it (everybody looked a little confused). Under NCAA rules, doesn't the kick end when it "comes to rest with no player attempting to recover"?
-
The KO play where ball was touched in field of play be B and then went to EZ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHW1jpg46oA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHW1jpg46oA)
Looks like A23's block on B20 meets the definition of a push and B20 is shielding the ball carrier. I got no foul.
Does anyone see an official (H/R) wind the clock (S2) or signal the legal touching (S11) when B80 muffed the kick?
-
Does anyone see an official (H/R) wind the clock (S2) or signal the legal touching (S11) when B80 muffed the kick?
No official on-screen signals (and they should have been the only ones in position to see the touch). But if they didn't wind the clock, why didn't they kill the kick when it touched in the EZ?
-
It appears the game clock started while the ball carrier was running around in his EZ. That is not an event to start the game clock on. When the ball carrier was tackled, there was 2 sec runoff the clock.
-
OK, so it should have been:
1. Ball touched by B in field of play, clock should start
2. Ball travels into EZ without an added force by B, so it's live, but in the EZ by force of the kick
3. B is free to bring it out, or down it in the EZ for a touchback (which it was).
OR
1. Ball wasn't touched by B in field of play
2. Ball should have been blown dead when it touched in the EZ
3. Clock never starts
What seems to have happened:
1. Ball was touched by B in field of play, but no official signalled it so clock didn't start
2. Ball was live in EZ, picked up by B and the clock starts
3. B tackled for a touchback, so clock stopped
While the final result was correct (touchback), the mechanics (and the clock) seem to have been butchered on this one.
-
...don't go looking for stuff like this unless the action is unnecessary. And if you rule that it is, then by definition it's a personal foul. First line of Rule 9.
"A block in the back is contact against an opponent occurring when the force of the initial contact is from behind and above the waist." (2-3-4a).
Pretty plain and straight forward. The block in question meets the definition.
-
It does fit the definition. But not all blocks in the back are fouls.
-
...But not all blocks in the back are fouls.
I agree. But I also feel the block in question does not fit into the spirit and intent of the exception. After he makes the block he winds up flat on his face. He has absolutely no shot at the ball carrier.
-
I agree. But I also feel the block in question does not fit into the spirit and intent of the exception. After he makes the block he winds up flat on his face. He has absolutely no shot at the ball carrier.
Perhaps A23 had no shot of getting to ball carrier after blocking B20. But prior to the block, B20 (blockee) stood directly between A23 and the ball carrier. To get at the ball carrier, A23 had to dislodge B20. The fact that A23 was unsuccessful has limited relevance.
Note, after A23 gets up, he immediately moves to continue his pursuit of the ball carrier. If his intentions were nefarious, A23 would likely had forsaken the ball carrier to laud over B20.
-
If his intentions were nefarious, A23 would likely had forsaken the ball carrier to laud over B20.
I like the entire post but love the "would likely have forsaken the ball carrier to laud over B20" part.
-
Perhaps A23 had no shot of getting to ball carrier after blocking B20. But prior to the block, B20 (blockee) stood directly between A23 and the ball carrier. To get at the ball carrier, A23 had to dislodge B20. The fact that A23 was unsuccessful has limited relevance.
Note, after A23 gets up, he immediately moves to continue his pursuit of the ball carrier. If his intentions were nefarious, A23 would likely had forsaken the ball carrier to laud over B20.
Some folks are saying, "Whut da hail didee say?" But I understood. 8]
-
Note, after A23 gets up, he immediately moves to continue his pursuit of the ball carrier.
You call that "pursuit?" ???
-
I am way underpaid!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SivqP2SHxM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SivqP2SHxM)
I think we can all agree to that - and possibly offer you a 25% raise for the Bowl season for next year.
-
I think we can all agree to that - and possibly offer you a 25% raise for the Bowl season for next year.
TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT ! :o
I don't know what he is currently getting, but we're in a recession and this ain't Wall St. >:D
-
That 25% would put me in a different tax bracket, so thanks, but no thanks
-
Isnt 25% of zero still zero?
-
Isnt 25% of zero still zero?
Explain that to Congress and the current administration, please.
-
mccormicw nailed my idea.