Author Topic: UNC / Clemson offsides on free kick (Read 24556 times)

golfingref · « **on:** December 06, 2015, 03:21:00 PM »

Did not see the play live, only on the recap show Sunday morning. From the highlights shown, no UNC player was over the restraining line. Can this not be reviewed and over turned if in fact there was no player offsides?

BankerRef · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2015, 03:26:59 PM »

I'll go out on a limb and say, just like blocking became reviewable this year, this will be reviewable next.

BrendanP · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2015, 03:43:50 PM »

Quote from: BankerRef on December 06, 2015, 03:26:59 PM

I'll go out on a limb and say, just like blocking became reviewable this year, this will be reviewable next.

Unless it's completely obvious, I'd guess that 99% of those calls would be let stand. There's not a camera angle, IMO, that can show it clearly enough to overturn a call either way. Case in point, Michigan and Penn State last season.

TXMike · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2015, 03:53:30 PM »

They keep adding things to the list of reviewable with no guarantee there will always be a camera looking down a line (forward progress, goal line, line of scrimmage, restraining line, etc) to give the view that is needed. We have been through this before , parallax, will distort the view you get when you are looking "down a line" at an angle to the line.

In this specific situation, there is going to be lots for ACC and others to look at. Offside or not? Possible targeting (uncalled) by UNC on 1st onside kick and KCI by UNC (uncalled) on 2d onside kick.

https://youtu.be/j6oC270r30s

Bwest · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2015, 04:29:59 PM »

Quote from: TXMike on December 06, 2015, 03:53:30 PM

In this specific situation, there is going to be lots for ACC and others to look at. Offside or not? Possible targeting (uncalled) by UNC on 1st onside kick and KCI by UNC (uncalled) on 2d onside kick.

https://youtu.be/j6oC270r30s

Personal opinion (potentially clouded since I have a degree from UNC):
Not offside
Targeting
Not KCI

TXMike · « **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2015, 04:32:53 PM »

Why is it not KCI in 2d play?

Bwest · « **Reply #6 on:** December 06, 2015, 04:53:55 PM »

Quote from: TXMike on December 06, 2015, 04:32:53 PM

Why is it not KCI in 2d play?

No fair catch signal that I saw, his protection ends immediately as soon as the ball is muffed.

Osric Pureheart · « **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2015, 04:58:08 PM »

But, grasshopper, why did he muff the ball?

TxSkyBolt · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2015, 05:34:42 PM »

OFK?

[attachment deleted by admin]

TXMike · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2015, 05:37:54 PM »

Quote from: TxSkyBolt on December 06, 2015, 05:34:42 PM

OFK?

on who?

TxSkyBolt · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2015, 05:39:38 PM »

Nobody, hence the question mark. Don't know who the B called it on.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2015, 06:02:20 PM »

1a. Pretty clearly IMO not offside.
1b. I don't see anything that approaches targeting here.

2. KCI - Since this is a "one-hop" kickoff my current understanding is that the team B receiver must be allowed to complete the catch just as if the kick was originally airborne off of the tee. When he was hit by the team A player he was still in the air with possession of the ball and IMO had not yet had the opportunity to complete the catch.

TXMike · « **Reply #12 on:** December 06, 2015, 06:21:22 PM »

The "targeting" chatter surrounds Blue #42

[attachment deleted by admin]

Andrew McCarthy · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2015, 06:23:58 PM »

If they are going to make it reviewable I suggest changing the rule to involve the position of the feet on the ground in relation to the line so you don't need a camera right down the line.

Andrew McCarthy · « **Reply #14 on:** December 06, 2015, 06:38:07 PM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on December 06, 2015, 06:02:20 PM

When he was hit by the team A player he was still in the air with possession of the ball and IMO had not yet had the opportunity to complete the catch.

Since he did not signal, KCI protection ends when the ball is muffed or touched by the Team B player. 6-4-1-b.

TXMike · « **Reply #15 on:** December 06, 2015, 06:42:55 PM »

Do we agree that the Team A player was within a yard directly in front of the Team B player attempting to catch the kick BEFORE the kick was touched?

Osric Pureheart · « **Reply #16 on:** December 06, 2015, 07:13:25 PM »

Quote from: Andrew McCarthy on December 06, 2015, 06:38:07 PM

Since he did not signal, KCI protection ends when the ball is muffed or touched by the Team B player. 6-4-1-b.

Here's a play some of us probably remember.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQ7bl2nvP8

Let's imagine that the interfering player(s?) are instead approaching a yard or two off to the side of B25 at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock and do not interfere with his path towards the ball. B25 gains control over the ball, is hit with identical timing, and muffs it. Is that KCI?

If not, it seems entirely bizarre that in the clip as shown a player can complete a catch and be entitled to a kick catch interference call for opponents violating the no-go zone; but in a very very slightly different situation, he literally is interfered with by an opponent before completing the catch, interference which causes him to muff it, but that somehow isn't a kick catch interference foul.

Andrew McCarthy · « **Reply #17 on:** December 06, 2015, 07:51:09 PM »

Quote from: TXMike on December 06, 2015, 06:42:55 PM

Do we agree that the Team A player was within a yard directly in front of the Team B player attempting to catch the kick BEFORE the kick was touched?

I don't agree. Stop the video around 3:02 just as he touches the ball. The kicking team player is not in front of the receiver. Perfectly defended, in my opinion.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #18 on:** December 06, 2015, 08:29:13 PM »

If A hadn't jumped to catch the ball and was simply standing still and the B player hit him with the the same timing as in this clip would we let that go?

riffraft · « **Reply #19 on:** December 06, 2015, 11:44:13 PM »

The thing I see on the kick is there is only 3 players on one side of the kicker at the time of the kick

goodgrr · « **Reply #20 on:** December 07, 2015, 03:28:01 AM »

Quote from: riffraft on December 06, 2015, 11:44:13 PM

The thing I see on the kick is there is only 3 players on one side of the kicker at the time of the kick

On which play? The two UNC/Clemson kicks have valid numbers.

goodgrr · « **Reply #21 on:** December 07, 2015, 03:49:11 AM »

Quote from: Andrew McCarthy on December 06, 2015, 06:38:07 PM

Since he did not signal, KCI protection ends when the ball is muffed or touched by the Team B player. 6-4-1-b.

However in this case wouldn't 6-4-1-e apply, in real time that looks bang/bang to me?

"It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball (A.R. 6-4-1-II, III, and VIII). When in question, it is an interference foul."

Bwest · « **Reply #22 on:** December 07, 2015, 06:50:32 AM »

Quote from: goodgrr on December 07, 2015, 03:49:11 AM

However in this case wouldn't 6-4-1-e apply, in real time that looks bang/bang to me?

"It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball (A.R. 6-4-1-II, III, and VIII). When in question, it is an interference foul."

I think it's very clearly not simultaneous contact. I think you would have a hard telling selling to a coach that you saw the hit and the ball arrive at the same time.

Osric Pureheart · « **Reply #23 on:** December 07, 2015, 08:34:50 AM »

I would still like an answer on how it can possibly make any kind of sense that we're apparently saying that a player can catch the ball without being touched and still get a kick catch interference flag; and also attempt to catch the ball, get hit hard and forced to muff it, but not get a kick catch interference flag.

Can you imagine trying to explain this to a rookie official? Or any non-official who knows anything about football? Even by the skewed standards of the rulebook it defies all sense.

bossman72 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 07, 2015, 08:41:51 AM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on December 06, 2015, 06:02:20 PM

2. KCI - Since this is a "one-hop" kickoff my current understanding is that the team B receiver must be allowed to complete the catch just as if the kick was originally airborne off of the tee. When he was hit by the team A player he was still in the air with possession of the ball and IMO had not yet had the opportunity to complete the catch.

No, this is not what the rule was intending to prevent. The ball needs to be driven IMMEDIATELY into the ground - basically right in front of the tee - for the receivers to get protection. This was a "traditional" onside kick with the bounce happening at the 40, so no KCI protection.