CLEMSON v ALABAMA

[Razor]

On the winning pass, does Clemson pick the DB that lets the receiver get open?

[Kalle]

I don't see contact so no OPI. The only contact is the voluntary block by the defender defending the outside receiver. The defender covering the inside receiver should have run into the outside receiver, then it would have been OPI.

Remember that in NCAA pass interference always requires contact.

[bossman72]

I got nothing.  Defender initiated contact.

[AFOpie]

I was more mad about the rules expert talking about how the clock would run on the onside kick if it was recovered by K without the knee on the ground. I was yelling at the TV..... I have problems... 

[Magician]

I was more mad about the rules expert talking about how the clock would run on the onside kick if it was recovered by K without the knee on the ground. I was yelling at the TV..... I have problems... 

What do you disagree with? The clock starts with legal touching by either team so it would start when he touched it. The clock does not run when the ball is recovered by a prone player.

[Archie]

Not that this would fit within the Football Code for sportsmanship, but I was expecting Saban's team to tackle all the receivers on the play with 6 seconds to go.  Take the foul, but let the clock run down.  That most assuredly would have forced Clemson to kick the fg for OT.

[psv]

I gotta disagree. 

7.3.8.b says it is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid contact.  In my opinion, not only does the offensive player initiate the contact, he continues that action creating a significant disadvantage for the defender.  He certainly wasnt trying to get away to "run a route"  he was welcoming the contact and continuing it because that is what he was supposed to do.

Maybe they are saying the contact started at the 1 so it was OK? 

My .02 worth.

[NVFOA_Ump]

What do you disagree with? The clock starts with legal touching by either team so it would start when he touched it. The clock does not run when the ball is recovered by a prone player.

Except that on a kick the CO doesn't start the clock until signaled to do so by an on-field official (indicating that the kick has been legally touched) and if a kick is possessed by the kicking team the ball is immediately dead by rule so why would the clock run in that scenario?  If it were legally touched by either team, and not immediately possessed by the kicking team, then I would agree that the clock would run.

[Timer]

I wasn't as concerned about the no-call on the game winning play as I was on the previous TD that wasn't called and IMHO was obviously OPI. 

[hefnerjm]

I wasn't as concerned about the no-call on the game winning play as I was on the previous TD that wasn't called and IMHO was obviously OPI.

If consistency is the goal, then I think either both plays should called the same.  Either OPI or no foul.  The crew was consistent. 

[scrounge]

If consistency is the goal, then I think either both plays should called the same.  Either OPI or no foul.  The crew was consistent.

I don't think consistency would be called for here, because they were very different plays. I thought, if anything, the DB pulled the WR down on the last TD. On the previous one, the WR very clearly was drive-blocking the DB and initiating the contact. I'm fine with no flag on the last play, but I thought the previous Clem TD was a big miss.

There were three misses on the night as I saw it. On the first Ala TD run, the pulling guard clearly held the DE right at the point of attack. I thought the 2nd hit on Clem WR Williams was targeting as he was being held up by another defender. And the OPI on the 2nd to last Clem TD.

[BrendanP]

The defender reaches out and engages the receiver. No flag for OPI.

[Sonofanump]

I wasn't as concerned about the no-call on the game winning play as I was on the previous TD that wasn't called and IMHO was obviously OPI.

I have nothing on the game winner.

The TD prior (4th 14:00) is much different and contact initiated by the WR.

[east louis]

i am in agreement w/ psv all the way--dont be trigger happy on DPI,and relaxed to OPI--regardless of CFP title or any other game,GET IT RIGHT--my .02

[#92]

How do you guys feel about the possible TGT's?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/01/did_alabama_get_away_with_targ.html

I know you need at least one indicator. But "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area" is one, and that seems applicable to a lot of situations. Also situations that then are not ruled TGT in the CFO Review Test.

Also, since the crown of the helmet is enlarged by definition, does the action in the second clip apply for both 9-1-3 AND 9-1-4?

Or are those both good no calls? And if so, how do you interpret the "leading with ..." indicator? As then I'm clearly misinterpreting it.

[hefnerjm]

How do you guys feel about the possible TGT's?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/01/did_alabama_get_away_with_targ.html

I know you need at least one indicator. But "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area" is one, and that seems applicable to a lot of situations. Also situations that then are not ruled TGT in the CFO Review Test.

Also, since the crown of the helmet is enlarged by definition, does the action in the second clip apply for both 9-1-3 AND 9-1-4?

Or are those both good no calls? And if so, how do you interpret the "leading with ..." indicator? As then I'm clearly misinterpreting it.

On the first play, it looked like QB had just thrown the pass, and the contact was with forearm not with crown of the helmet.  Therefore, not 9-1-3. 
Based on the gif, it could be suspect for 9-1-4 unless the covering official deemed he had time to protect himself and no longer be "defenseless"...if you look at the whole play (instead of just the gif in the link), you will see that it was an option play, and just before the tackle was made, Watson was a runner and the pass was an option pitch.  Given this additional context, Id have a PF-UNR, but no TGT.

On the 2nd play, I had a similar initial thought...the rationale that I heard was that he was a runner, and not defenseless as his forward progress has to be stopped.  9-1-4 would require "A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped."  Not the case here.

[#92]

Ok, I see what you mean with the option play, now that I looked at the entire action. Which I should've done initially of course...

But the second one, that's 9-1-3, no?

[wlemonnier]

Think about something said earlier about the clock starting/not starting depending on whether the Team A player was upright v. on the ground on the on-side kick at the end of the game...

If the Team A player cleanly possesses the kick, the clock does not start PERIOD.  Team A can't advance a recovered kick, only possess it, so whether the player is upright or down shouldn't matter.

If the kick went 10 yards and the Team A player muffed the kick, the clock would start and in this case expire with only 1 second remaining when the play started.

The interesting "what if" scenario would be an illegal touch before 10 yards, possession by Team B and B is down at the 10 yard line... Game over, as an illegal touch is a violation and does not give Team B an untimed down.