« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Cal v USC - Illegal touching  (Read 7950 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ajv

  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
Cal v USC - Illegal touching
« on: November 16, 2014, 01:22:57 AM »
I don't have video.

10:08 in the 4th quarter. 1st & 10 @ A-46. A16 pass to left sideline. Receiver A9 steps out of bounds on his own, reestablishes inbounds at B-48, catches the ball and heads upfield for a few yards. Then all these events happen about the same time: F runs in signalling incomplete; A9 steps/bumped hard out of bounds; F throws flag. After discussion, R call is Illegal Touching although he signals it with only one hand on the shoulder.

In the immediate video replay it is possible that the player does not touch the ground in bounds and reestablish before touching the ball.

Illegal touching by an originally eligible player does not cause he ball to become dead, right? It's just a foul which "acts" like an incomplete pass but the ball is still live if he catches it and we have to give A the full opportunity to make a boneheaded fumble or even for B to foul as well ;)

If A9 did not reestablish then we have a simple incomplete pass with no foul for Illegal Touching, a possible Delay for advancing the ball if you were cruel, and a possible late hit if you were even more cruel (neither of which you would actually call).
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 01:42:49 AM by ajv »
Logged

Offline BoBo

  • *
  • Posts: 227
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-1
Re: Cal v USC - Illegal touching
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2014, 04:46:45 PM »
If the WR goes out of bounds on their own and has not reestablished themselves once he touches the ball the play is dead, he is still considered out of bounds.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Cal v USC - Illegal touching
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2014, 05:52:13 PM »
Wellllll....can't have it both ways. If was out of bounds and had not re-established,  it is simply an incomplete pass, no foul.  If he re-established, it IS a foul  BUT the play should have been allowed to continue.  The F was not 100 % correct.  (But then the R gave the wrong signal, so it's all good)   pi1eOn

The video:  http://youtu.be/3PUwP8qmlVI
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 05:09:03 AM by TXMike »
Logged

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2337
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-29
Re: Cal v USC - Illegal touching
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2014, 09:15:51 AM »
Right, this play should have remained alive and a flag for ITP
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Cal v USC - Illegal touching
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2014, 08:52:11 AM »
Play made the CFO video this week.He echo'd what was said here except did not mention the R's signal.
Logged

Offline ajv

  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
Re: Cal v USC - Illegal touching
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2014, 02:06:43 PM »
In the video RR used the two examples: fumble & offsetting fouls. Are we being watched?  :) <waves>
Logged

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
Re: Cal v USC - Illegal touching
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2014, 10:13:48 AM »
Quote from: TXMike on November 27, 2014, 08:52:11 AM
Play made the CFO video this week.He echo'd what was said here except did not mention the R's signal.

On play 22 also he didn't mention that the foul for IBB was not by the kicking team, as the R announced, since it was an intercepted pass...
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Cal v USC - Illegal touching
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2014, 11:09:56 AM »
Play 22 was an int return.  Team A blocked below the waist taking out a blocker on  the return.  The R announced foul was on kicking team although there was no kicking team.  It was on team A and was enforced from the end of the run
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »