« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Houston v. Pitt  (Read 6737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Txgarza

  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-3
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Houston v. Pitt
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:09:34 PM »
On houstons first onside kick, technically should it have been a penalty?  Not all the players were on the line when the kicker was running to kick the ball. Just curious. Thank you.
Logged

Online Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 1036
  • FAN REACTION: +56/-11
Re: Houston v. Pitt
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2015, 11:16:51 PM »
They don't have to be in the line, they just have to have at least one foot inside the line.
Logged

Offline Txgarza

  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-3
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Houston v. Pitt
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2015, 01:14:14 AM »
One player at the bottom of the screen had both feet outside the 5 yd restraint. Possibly another player. Can't recall.
Logged

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 295
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-4
Re: Houston v. Pitt
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2015, 09:27:59 PM »
Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3461
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Houston v. Pitt
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2015, 02:24:31 AM »
That isn't even a technicality, that should be a foul even on a deep kick, let alone on an onside one.
Logged

Offline centexsports

  • *
  • Posts: 233
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-9
Re: Houston v. Pitt
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2015, 02:48:10 AM »
Of all the calls I have seen missed, this is probably the most forgivable.  Officials on the restraining line check their players position (and all were legal).    Then concentration goes to potential off sides.  I can not see even the best official taking his eye off the restraining line on an obvious on-side kick situation. 

This may not even be a technical question but I believe it is a spirit of the rule question.   
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Houston v. Pitt
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2015, 08:07:37 AM »
I do not see how the spirit and intent of this rule was violated in this play.  The player was not getting a running start straight downfield which would have resulted in a huge collision due to him having built up so much inertia.  In fact, the player is not even involved in the play at all.  If anything he put himself at a disadvantage by his movement.
Logged

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2388
  • FAN REACTION: +312/-29
Re: Houston v. Pitt
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2015, 12:10:11 PM »
Are you referring to #2 on the kicking team??  Too technical... I would not have called him for being past the 5 yd belt.
Logged

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: Houston v. Pitt
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2015, 12:29:58 PM »
In the spirit of the rule I would not consider that a foul. It's good for discussion purposes though and I would love to hear RR provide the same guidance.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »