Multiple Foul Enforcement

[bama_stripes]

In the SEC Championship Game, there were multiple fouls against B.  Here's the R's announcement:

"Personal Foul Facemask on #xx, defense.  That penalty is cancelled.
Unnecessary Roughness on #xx, defense.  That player is disqualified.
After the play, Unsportsmanlike Conduct on #xx, defense.  That is #xx's first unsportsmanlike foul."

Is there such an animal as a "cancelled" penalty in NCAA, or did he just misspeak?

[Kalle]

Is there such an animal as a "cancelled" penalty in NCAA, or did he just misspeak?

There is, but only when there are 15 yard dead ball penalties against both teams before any of them have been completed, which isn't the case here. He misspoke, should have said "declined."

[Legacy Zebra]

For those who haven't seen it. https://youtu.be/WHlD6k1DGQ4?t=7707 If the time stamp doesn't work for you, it's at 2:08:27.

There were a couple things in this sequence that I didn't like (beside the poor announcement). I don't agree with making the UNR a live ball foul. If you're calling that action a foul, it's because his progress was already stopped, so this needs to be a dead ball foul in my opinion. And on top of that, I just don't see this as flagrant. I don't think it's any worse than a typical late hit.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I don't agree with making the UNR a live ball foul. If you're calling that action a foul, it's because his progress was already stopped, so this needs to be a dead ball foul in my opinion. And on top of that, I just don't see this as flagrant. I don't think it's any worse than a typical late hit.

I'd agree - Live ball FM on the tackle, DB-PF-UNR for the plant after forward progress was clearly stopped (but not a flagrant foul), DB-PF for the hit in the crowd well after the play was over. 1/2 distance 3 times.

[Ironhead17]

That was an interesting - "cancelled" and the ejection was not justified.

[bossman72]

I'd agree - Live ball FM on the tackle, DB-PF-UNR for the plant after forward progress was clearly stopped (but not a flagrant foul), DB-PF for the hit in the crowd well after the play was over. 1/2 distance 3 times.

Agree.  UNR on 93 definitely, but I would not eject for this.  It is not flagrant.

[hefnerjm]

Does anyone have issue with B11 coming in high after progress was stopped, while B93 is in the process of piledriving?  I could see that hit the head being the UNR (and not TGT since ball carrier)...maybe with so much going on, they just mixed up the responsible parties for each action?  Either way, still DB, right?

[goodgrr]

Does anyone have issue with B11 coming in high after progress was stopped, while B93 is in the process of piledriving?  I could see that hit the head being the UNR (and not TGT since ball carrier)...maybe with so much going on, they just mixed up the responsible parties for each action?  Either way, still DB, right?

He may be the ball carrier however there is a provision in the defenseless player notes that says it includes...

"A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped."

So could be targeting if you felt it met the other conditions.

[Morningrise]

If you're disqualifying for targeting, the R is obligated to announce it as targeting so replay can (must) review the call.

If you're disqualifying for any other PF/UNS, it has to be flagrant - above and beyond your typical PF/UNS action. (Fighting and contacting an official are always flagrant.)

Note that, if a PF is deemed flagrant, it affects the rules in one additional way: Flagrant PF penalties occurring after a change of possession on tries/EPs can carry over to the succeeding down, just like UNS, but *not* like regular PFs.

[Joe Stack]

I don't agree with making the UNR a live ball foul. If you're calling that action a foul, it's because his progress was already stopped, so this needs to be a dead ball foul in my opinion. And on top of that, I just don't see this as flagrant. I don't think it's any worse than a typical late hit.

Having had a sequence somewhat similar to this just a few weeks ago, I think you're getting a little picky here. If that was the only thing that happened, then maybe we discuss it and come out with an agreement, but several things went down and they had to put them all in order. Your point is, at best, arguable rather than obvious so given everything they had to sort out, even if it was a mistake it was very minor. I personally think it could go either way and would leave it up to the ones on the field -- who blew the whistles and made the ruling as to when the play was dead -- to decide.

In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if 93 had been a problem child and that stunt was the last straw. Would I toss him on the first play of the game for that? Maybe not, but I would take whatever reasonable action necessary to keep the game from getting out of control. This was reasonable.

Matt should have said "declined" rather than cancelled but it communicated to everyone what happened, so I wouldn't call it a "poor announcement." Fans don't know the difference. A little like calling Team A for being offsides instead of encroachment. They still fouled and it is still 5 yards.

[hefnerjm]

I personally think it could go either way and would leave it up to the ones on the field -- who blew the whistles and made the ruling as to when the play was dead -- to decide.