ACC Championship Game

[Curious]

PREFACE:I started this earlier; but wanted to verify my facts before I wrote any criticism of the crew (which I will say otherwise worked a good game).  Also, given the TV coverage, it is not possible to know for sure whether options were properly offered to Va. Tech.  That said, other than it was a Championship game, this play seems pretty basic to me.

PLAY: 1:33 2nd quarter; Clemson punting from own 35.  2 Flags down during the play.  Hold by Va Tech at their 35 and KCI by Clemson FOLLOWING THE CATCH (no fair catch signal) at the VT 22.  The fouls were both correctly called "live ball"; BUT, seemingly without any consultation with the Va Tech sideline, the crew judged this a double foul (off-setting fouls) and replayed the down.  On the re-kick, the VT receiver muff the ball but, fortunately, recovered at his 26.

QUESTIONS:

1. Since, The VT receiver was pounded AFTER he caught the ball (no fair catch signal), was KCI the right call?  IMHO, it wasn't late, excessive or targeting - and the contact was clearly after the catch.  If it was correct, shouldn’t it be announced/explained as "a violation of the 1 yd belt"??  I can actually live with the call IF the B felt the K player was within 1 yard.  I guess 6-4-1b gives him an "out" - although ANY violation of the 1-yd belt was REALLY CLOSE!.

2. Va Tech, the team in final possession, clearly fouled during the kick and all requirements of PSK were met.  Therefore, shouldn’t they be given the option of keeping the ball by declining the foul by K (10-1-4 Ex 2)?  Again, based on what the TV coverage gave us, it did not appear that VT was given that option. The score at the time was 21-14 Clemson.  VT had just scored and forced Clemson to punt.  VT may well have declined the KCI foul to preserve more time before the half.

3. ESPN had Dave Kataia (?) in the booth to discuss rules interpretations; but nothing was said about this enforcement procedure.  If it was incorrectly enforced, shouldn’t Kataia have indicated that?  I don’t remember who the “rules guru” was for the CMU/OK State game; but he at least mentioned that he didn’t think the period extension was correct.  So there was some “precedent”…..Again, there were a whole bunch of field/re-play/and stand-by officials around who could have brought it up to or within the crew.

[ChicagoZebra]

For what's worth - the referee failing to give B an option to decline A's penalty in this sort of PSK/offset situation made it to one of Redding's training tapes earlier this year, so there is precedent for a D1 crew to miss that.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I didn't see any real options here.  Decline the K 15 yard penalty and have the R 10 yard penalty enforced as PSK?  That makes no sense, and I can't see a coach picking that option. That option may have been offered in any case but why would you (if you were the coach) consider that here? IMO pretty clear that the re-kick was the best result for VT giving them an opportunity for a return.  As for KCI, that's a pure judgment call and I'll go with the call as it was made.

[Curious]

For what's worth - the referee failing to give B an option to decline A's penalty in this sort of PSK/offset situation made it to one of Redding's training tapes earlier this year, so there is precedent for a D1 crew to miss that.

Are you saying RR's training tape directed D1 crews to immediately off-set the fouls; or did you mean there is NO precedent to miss the call?

[Curious]

I didn't see any real options here.  Decline the K 15 yard penalty and have the R 10 yard penalty enforced as PSK?  That makes no sense, and I can't see a coach picking that option. That option may have been offered in any case but why would you (if you were the coach) consider that here? IMO pretty clear that the re-kick was the best result for VT giving them an opportunity for a return. 

First, the options ARE the options.  I don't see where we get to pick and choose which are presented to the offended team.  Secondly, since there was about minute and twenty seconds left when this occurred, I certainly CAN see why a coach might want to decline and keep the ball - but I sure would want to know my options and make my own decision.  Bad things could happen on the re-kick (and almost did) as easily as good things.

As for KCI, that's a pure judgment call and I'll go with the call as it was made.

Can't argue about judgement; but my real question was about the explanation/announcement...

Still would like to hear any thoughts about the "rules guru's" involvement.  He was all over the targeting call (which was an excellent call); but he remained moot on this one...

[Welpe]

3. ESPN had Dave Kataia (?) in the booth to discuss rules interpretations; but nothing was said about this enforcement procedure.  If it was incorrectly enforced, shouldn’t Kataia have indicated that?  I don’t remember who the “rules guru” was for the CMU/OK State game; but he at least mentioned that he didn’t think the period extension was correct.  So there was some “precedent”…..Again, there were a whole bunch of field/re-play/and stand-by officials around who could have brought it up to or within the crew.

Was he actually in the booth or did they only go to him when they had a questionable situation?

And it is "Cutaia" just for your info.

[ChicagoZebra]

Are you saying RR's training tape directed D1 crews to immediately off-set the fouls; or did you mean there is NO precedent to miss the call?

I meant that the training tape noted that the officials incorrectly offset the penalties without offering the option to B to decline A's penalty.

[Curious]

Was he actually in the booth or did they only go to him when they had a questionable situation?

And it is "Cutaia" just for your info.

Thanks for the clarification.  I only saw his name spelled on-screen when I had the TV on "closed captions".  They never showed him on camera but it sure seemed and sounded like he was there, on site, or in the booth.  Can't really be sure.  He was only introduced as "their rules expert".  I can see where he might not chime in on the enforcement procedure if he was watching the same feed the rest of us had.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I didn't say there weren't any options.  IMO there weren't any real options.  Why would a coach want to start a series 1st & 10 at his own 12 late in a half vs. a re-kick from the other side of the field at the 35 with a chance at a return and field position?

We simply don't know if the option was offered to the VT coach or not, and why are we assuming it wasn't?

[Curious]

I didn't say there weren't any options.  IMO there weren't any real options.  Why would a coach want to start a series 1st & 10 at his own 12 late in a half vs. a re-kick from the other side of the field at the 35 with a chance at a return and field position?

Maybe they wouldn't; but we don't have the authority to make that decision for the coach.

We simply don't know if the option was offered to the VT coach or not, and why are we assuming it wasn't?

All the video was focused on the R and two wing guys anf the B.  Nobody approached the VT coach. Maybe it was by mental telepathy

[Legacy Zebra]

Don't need telepathy when you're all wearing radios. Pretty easy to get a coach's choice without the R going over to ask.

[jrfath]

Don't need telepathy when you're all wearing radios. Pretty easy to get a coach's choice without the R going over to ask.

I do not believe the ACC uses O2O.