Author Topic: Was that a good or bad call in Fla St v ND Game (Read 27722 times)

LJ1977 · « **on:** October 19, 2014, 09:37:49 AM »

was that a a good call for blocking down field 4th and goal

TXMike · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2014, 09:59:49 AM »

If you mean the OPI, there were 2 guys doing it. Great call. Brass cajones. Coach was crazy to think he could get away with that

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2014, 10:01:35 AM »

I'd say yes. Play started out looking like a wide receiver screen with lead receivers pushing downfield into the defenders clearly blocking. Problem here was that the pass to A-88 was apparently a bit late and A-88 was beyond the NZ and downfield before he actually caught the ball. Can't have team A blocking downfield on a play where the forward pass crosses the NZ.

EVW · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2014, 10:14:29 AM »

Outstanding call. Takes brass ones to make this call, it is the correct call for OPI. Great moment in officiating.

golfingref · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2014, 12:32:11 PM »

Great call!!

NorCalMike · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2014, 03:23:45 PM »

Even the comment-taters mentioned that the call took some big balls.

BrendanP · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2014, 08:39:45 PM »

Textbook OPI. receiver was blocking downfield on a pass play.

TXMike · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2014, 08:13:00 AM »

Doug Rhoads explains the call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTVV8PC9gkI

Apparently the coach does not agree: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/10/19/7005349/notre-dame-florida-state-brian-kelly-comments-pass-interference

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2014, 09:01:40 AM »

Would have been perfectly legal if A-88 was just 2 yards further away from the goal line and not beyond the NZ but he very clearly was. Might have been a big call in a big game but it was very clearly a foul by each of the wide receivers.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2014, 09:35:10 AM »

Apparently, Coach Kelly didn't have a problem during the game. He merely looked down to his play sheet to call the next play.

TXMike · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2014, 09:38:31 AM »

He had a problem. There was a timeout at some point after this and he had to be restrained

Suudy · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2014, 09:45:24 AM »

If you want an "unbiased" viewpoint (I imagine some might consider an ACC channel with an ACC exec not quite impartial):

http://youtu.be/RcTSc_JkvOI

TxSkyBolt · « **Reply #12 on:** October 20, 2014, 09:54:47 AM »

Rhoads never really addressed this specific play just general OPI pick plays. It would have been nice if he'd have publicly supported the calling official

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

riffraft · « **Reply #13 on:** October 20, 2014, 10:16:56 AM »

I am absolutely amazed at the number of people (not on this forum) who say that it was a bad call. There was no doubt at all that it was OPI.

TXMike · « **Reply #14 on:** October 20, 2014, 10:23:18 AM »

And now the issue is....you did not call it on an earlier TD so why call it now? The first play in the hilite reel is the previous TD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01EZyYZLa4

TXMike · « **Reply #15 on:** October 20, 2014, 10:24:47 AM »

Quote from: TxSkyBolt on October 20, 2014, 09:54:47 AM

Rhoads never really addressed this specific play just general OPI pick plays. It would have been nice if he'd have publicly supported the calling official

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will wager an adult beverage the play is on CFO video soon and there will be unequivocal support

clearwall · « **Reply #16 on:** October 20, 2014, 11:39:43 AM »

Here's why I disagree with it:
1. Defender initiated contact. Dont we still 'waive' OPI when contact is by the defender before the ball is in flight?
2. WR is attempting to run a route, not block:
a.

Head and body are both turned toward the middle of the field
b.

WR arm is at his side. Has anyone ever blocked with no arms like this?
3. Even if you agree with the OPI call, why was this missed?

TXMike · « **Reply #17 on:** October 20, 2014, 12:01:29 PM »

As for blocking with no arms, I have seen receivers running pick plays do this because they actually believe there are officials who will not flag them if they are not using their arms as part if the action . ;-) I have also seen blockers do that when executing a block inthe back but know they will get caught if use arms

Rulesman · « **Reply #18 on:** October 20, 2014, 12:06:26 PM »

Quote from: TXMike on October 20, 2014, 10:23:18 AM

And now the issue is....you did not call it on an earlier TD so why call it now?

That is the only problem I had with the call. Right call, no doubt about it. But even the FSU broadcast wondered the same thing. Why now? These are the plays that give us a bad rap: no foul until the last 20 seconds of the game.

copedaddy · « **Reply #19 on:** October 20, 2014, 12:29:08 PM »

Good call, but like an old coach told me once, if it ain't holing at the 50, it ain't holding at the 5. Need to call every time

copedaddy · « **Reply #20 on:** October 20, 2014, 12:31:41 PM »

Plus, first play on the highlight reel, it is at least close to the LOS, perhaps more noticeable the second time. Perhaps a second half adjustment?

Sonofanump · « **Reply #21 on:** October 20, 2014, 02:47:01 PM »

Quote from: TXMike on October 20, 2014, 10:23:18 AM

And now the issue is....you did not call it on an earlier TD so why call it now? The first play in the hilite reel is the previous TD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01EZyYZLa4

Can't tell from the video, was that touched 6"-12" beyond the neutral zone?

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #22 on:** October 20, 2014, 04:11:15 PM »

Two similar yet markedly different plays.

Play #1 - the receiver is at the 1 with his right foot while his left foot is at or near the goal line as he reaches back very near the 1 to catch the ball. LOS is the 1. No way to say that the forward pass was completely beyond the NZ before being touched.

Play #2 - the receiver is at the 1 with both his right foot and his left foot as he lets the ball come into his body. LOS is outside the 2. Some could call this one close but there is no question on this one that the forward pass was beyond the NZ before being touched.

IMO there is no question that multiple team A receivers were blocking downfield beyond the NZ on both plays. IMO #1 is at the edge but a clearly supportable non-call, while #2 is black & white - a foul.

bossman72 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 21, 2014, 08:33:49 AM »

Quote from: clearwall on October 20, 2014, 11:39:43 AM

Here's why I disagree with it:
1. Defender initiated contact. Dont we still 'waive' OPI when contact is by the defender before the ball is in flight?
2. WR is attempting to run a route, not block:
a.
Head and body are both turned toward the middle of the field
b.
WR arm is at his side. Has anyone ever blocked with no arms like this?
3. Even if you agree with the OPI call, why was this missed?

1) No, the defender did not initiate contact. The widest defender was going backward. The inside defender's feet were planted.

2) Responsibility is on the offense to avoid contact. Plus, the good pick plays make it look like you're not blocking.

3) Lots of things going on that play... The person who would probably see this is going to report his foul.

bossman72 · « **Reply #24 on:** October 21, 2014, 09:30:35 AM »

I also like how Brian Kelly is being such a crybaby about it too. Lest he forget the 2012 Pitt game in their national championship year where he got a bogus DPI call that set up ND for the game winning TD, among countless other close calls that ND always seems to be the beneficiary of.