Kickoff

[yarnnelg]

There are four different camera views on the play. What doesn't appear in the extremely short clip, is what follows. According to comments made today ....and I have my doubts as to the source. The SEC stated there was no conclusive evidence that the ball was touched.

When the ball passes number 8, he turns to pursue the ball going into the endzone, then stops before he reaches the endzone. The side official blew his whistle. There is no "immediate" coverage consideration under the whistle and replay issue. It's not immediately covered.

Remember, this is a kickoff. Coverage from Old Miss is not fast enough to sprint to an immediate cover at the goal line. There is only one player in entire stadium capable to get there and he's wearing number "1" in white. A world class sprinter timed at low 10's in the 100 yard dash in high school. If it weren't for the pandemic ..he would have been in Tokyo competing.

I doubt the supposed SEC version of no compelling evidence the ball was touched. I say that because it was clear the crew made a clear mistake in the illegal, backward panic pass vs. Arkansas. The snap was fumbled ( direct snap) touched the ground, QB picked up the ball, then spiked it behind his feet...the White blew his whistle because he ignored the first rule of "expect the unexpected" White Hat was caught off guard expecting same ole, same ole, blew his whistle and was caught with his pants down...crew echoed the whistle as the ball bounded away from the QB, was touched by Arkansas, bounced away from the touch, touched the "C" official's foot, then was recovered by Arkansas.

If it was touched, a whistle stopped "8" from chasing the ball in the endzone. Why not simply state "A whistle blew the play dead. Before the ball is recovered in the endzone, officials are signaling touchback.

[dammitbobby]

Do any of the camera angles show an official winding the clock after the Auburn kid 'touched' it?

[ElvisLives]

Based on the (supposed) touch(muff) by B, this establishes that A players have a right to the ball.  (only one of the criteria must be met)
Team A may not touch the ball until they are eligible to touch it, which means it has reached B's restraining line or has been touched by B. In the given example, the ball is clearly well beyond B's restraining line, so A is eligible to touch the ball, regardless of the ruling as to whether or not it was touched by the B player in question.

Once B touches it, the clock should stat (on an official's signal): (3-3-2-a)
On a free kick, the game clock is started when it is legally touched in the field of play (by either team). For example, B11 catches the kick while standing in the end zone. The clock starts when the ball comes back across the goal line into the field of play (either in B11's possession, or loose, should he muff or fumble the ball). His touching of the ball before it touches the ground in the end zone removes the 'automatic' touchback should the ball be muffed and touch the ground in the end zone.   

As to the specific example originally presented, based on the view available here, I can't conclude at all that the ball was touched, at any viewing speed. In real time, on the field, at the time, I would have ruled no touch. If the ball then continued on and touched the ground in the end zone (still untouched by B), that would be an instant touchback. Just because the B player turned to pursue the ball does not necessarily mean that he thinks he touched it, because, at that point, Team A is eligible to touch (recover) the ball, if they can get to it before it touches the ground in the end zone. The B player may simply have been pursuing it to recover it himself, so Team A wouldn't get it. Then, when it touched the ground in the end zone, and officials sounded whistles and signaled touchback, he stopped pursuing the ball.

Fans see what they want to see, based on their biases and loyalties. Those simply can't be a part of officiating.

[CalhounLJ]

There are four different camera views on the play. What doesn't appear in the extremely short clip, is what follows. According to comments made today ....and I have my doubts as to the source. The SEC stated there was no conclusive evidence that the ball was touched.

When the ball passes number 8, he turns to pursue the ball going into the endzone, then stops before he reaches the endzone. The side official blew his whistle. There is no "immediate" coverage consideration under the whistle and replay issue. It's not immediately covered.

Remember, this is a kickoff. Coverage from Old Miss is not fast enough to sprint to an immediate cover at the goal line. There is only one player in entire stadium capable to get there and he's wearing number "1" in white. A world class sprinter timed at low 10's in the 100 yard dash in high school. If it weren't for the pandemic ..he would have been in Tokyo competing.

I doubt the supposed SEC version of no compelling evidence the ball was touched. I say that because it was clear the crew made a clear mistake in the illegal, backward panic pass vs. Arkansas. The snap was fumbled ( direct snap) touched the ground, QB picked up the ball, then spiked it behind his feet...the White blew his whistle because he ignored the first rule of "expect the unexpected" White Hat was caught off guard expecting same ole, same ole, blew his whistle and was caught with his pants down...crew echoed the whistle as the ball bounded away from the QB, was touched by Arkansas, bounced away from the touch, touched the "C" official's foot, then was recovered by Arkansas.

If it was touched, a whistle stopped "8" from chasing the ball in the endzone. Why not simply state "A whistle blew the play dead. Before the ball is recovered in the endzone, officials are signaling touchback.

Once again, you’re wrong. I was watching. There was an Ole Miss player there, chased the ball into the end zone. And fell on it. It was not the side guy who blew the whistle it was the referee. Looked at the side guy, gave the touchback signal, and then went to the side guy and asked him clearly (lip read) did he touch it. These facts are not in question. The only question is did he touch it, is it reviewable, and is there an immediate action clause to a play like this. There seems to conflicting views on this thread.

As to 8 chasing the ball, he had no way to get there before the Ole Miss player did.

[CalhounLJ]

Do any of the camera angles show an official winding the clock after the Auburn kid 'touched' it?

No the official did not see the touch. The ruling on the field was no touch.

As to the video, that’s a bad copy. There are better ones out there. Nobody’s throwing rocks at the officials on the field. No way to see such a slight touch at full speed. The issue is replay. To not even take a second look is incompetent at best.

[CalhounLJ]

Here's a much better link:
https://youtu.be/h8vQvx-SSqc

[dammitbobby]

IF it was live in the EZ and blown dead, wouldn't that be an IW?  Which isn't reviewable?

[yarnnelg]

We'll agree to disagree.

Using your clip of the full play and clips I found on You Tube.

The nearest Ole Miss player is at the 15 yard line when the ball reaches the goal line. Something brings #8 Auburn to a stop. As the Ole Miss player crosses the line and begins his slide .....Arm signals are later than the whistle .....My bet is the White Hat Hat blew his whistle, then the chorus of the two combined whistles becomes audible. The ball was not recovered before the the White Hat begins his touchback signal mirrored, as close as possible, by the "L" Official. However, it is almost simultaneous.  "L" is at the five yard line .on the kick..he has a more clear view when the ball passes #8 because he is looking straight into that side of #8. The White Hat is blocked and is looking through the back of #8.

Following the signal, the White Hat and "L" official come together ....My bet? "L" said "No touch"  When "L" separates, the White Hat makes his announcement.....

What makes #8 stop? Seeing the ball go into the end zone? or a whistle? #8 will never tell anyone what he feels as the ball passes.

I'm old school when it comes to Whistles ....Because I do a lot of Semi Pro under NFL rules .....you trend to swallow the whistle because too many High School Officials doing Semi Pro ....blow it when a runner falls or a receiver falls and no one is touching them ....they can get back up.

[yarnnelg]

IF it was live in the EZ and blown dead, wouldn't that be an IW?  Which isn't reviewable?

Exactly ..... the question becomes ..When did or (not) the first whistle blow?

The ball is laying in the end zone before the Ole Miss Player comes sliding in. If the White Hat anticipated ....he blew the whistle as the ball crossed into the end zone . Not reviewable......

And if that is the case .... The boards are exploding with questions as to whether or not Auburn is providing bigger checks than Alabama this year..
 

[Kalle]

IF it was live in the EZ and blown dead, wouldn't that be an IW?  Which isn't reviewable?

I don't think the "immediate recovery" applies, but IR can create an IW situation, I think. It may be that IR thought that this is not really relevant, as the alternative would have been to rekick. AFAIK NCAA abhors unnecessary replay stoppages.

[ElvisLives]

Having never seen the full video until a few minutes ago, I was quite surprised to see the L at the B-7 when the ball shot past the receiver. Conventional mechanics (i.e., in the CCA manual) prescribe the H and L stay on their pylons until the goal line is not 'threatened.' Not sure that would have made any difference with this down, as it played out. But, let's say a Team A player leaped on the ball just on the field side of the goal line, and he rolled into the end zone with the ball. Did he complete the recovery before the ball broke the plane of the goal line (A's ball at the spot of recovery)? Or after, but before touching the ground in the end zone (touchdown for A)? You'd need to be on the goal line to make that ruling. Yeah, the R had jumped up there (also a bit dangerous, if the ball IS touched in the field play and remains alive, and manages to threaten the end line). But the R may not have had the view that would be needed if a player jumped on the ball just outside the goal line.

Back to the action in question. The close sideline SLO-MOTION view leaves no doubt that the ball was touched. You can see the receiver's pinky finger deflect very rapidly - even with slo-motion - as the ball passes his hand. That is not a normal human finger movement, so it had to be due to the finger being struck - ever so slightly - by the ball. Not a human on the planet would have seen that in real time. Even if the L had been at the pylon - a better view of this action, IMHO - I don't think he would have positively seen this micro-touching.

As they would have said before replay: Them's the breaks. Get over it. Get better.

[Legacy Zebra]

Clear recovery applies to the immediate continuing action of any loose ball rules dead and supersedes inadvertent whistle rules (as that is the whole purpose of the continuing action rule). 12-3-3-d and 4-1-2-b-3 Exception are the applicable rules here. The touching of a kick is also reviewable under 12-3-4-a. So replay absolutely could have stepped in here and awarded A a touchdown.

[CalhounLJ]

Finally, a common sense objective answer. Thanks.

[CalhounLJ]

For context, here’s Kiffens comments via twitter:


Lane Kiffin says he just got off the phone with the SEC regarding blown call, "really struggle with this one."

Say fans "deserve to hear what I was just told," says he can't share it though per SEC rules.

"I had to take a 5-minute yoga session before walking in here."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ref6983]

Clear recovery applies to the immediate continuing action of any loose ball rules dead and supersedes inadvertent whistle rules (as that is the whole purpose of the continuing action rule). 12-3-3-d and 4-1-2-b-3 Exception are the applicable rules here. The touching of a kick is also reviewable under 12-3-4-a. So replay absolutely could have stepped in here and awarded A a touchdown.

This is correct from someone that is obviously very familiar with Rule 12. I realize not everyone has the need to delve into that rule or the Instant Replay Casebook, but if you feel it necessary to post replay opinions, then it would be good to do some research first.

[CalhounLJ]

This is correct from someone that is obviously very familiar with Rule 12. I realize not everyone has the need to delve into that rule or the Instant Replay Casebook, but if you feel it necessary to post replay opinions, then it would be good to do some research first.

Retweet.

Thanks for the info guys. I’m back to the fed page where I belong.

[CalhounLJ]

The SEC has issued the following statement related to the Auburn-Ole Miss football game of October 24:

On the kickoff return in the Auburn at Ole Miss football game at 5:43 in the 4th quarter, the SEC has determined the replay official should have stopped the game for further review of the play. In the football officiating replay process every play is reviewed but, when appropriate, the game is stopped for further review.

Because the play was not appropriately stopped for further review, the necessary slow-motion view of the play was not viewed by the replay official to determine if the ruling on the field should have been reversed.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So "theoretically", in a similar play like this where we have an instant replay reversed call to an IW, and based on the visuals here R sounding whistle as A player stops about 5 yards from the ball and the nearest B player is at least 5 yards further away would you actually consider this "immediate continuing action".  And further, who actually gets to decide the immediate continuing action component?  Is it the R who makes the call, or the replay official(s)?

[CalhounLJ]

I would assume once it went to replay it would be their responsibility. Also assuming, because I do not study NCAA rules, if both players stopped and didn’t recover, immediate action would not apply but because the Ole Miss player didn’t stop, but continued his action and recovered, that would fall under the qualifications for the immediate action. I’m not sure time or distance is a factor as much as stopping or continuing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Legacy Zebra]

In my opinion that was definitely quick enough to award a recovery and touchdown. The player who ends up with the ball is already at the goal line and going into his slide to recover the ball when the whistle is sounded and the signal is given. The Team B player who touched the ball had already turned away, so him not going after the ball is irrelevant to continuing action. It’s not like he saw the signal or heard the whistle and then walked away. He had already abandoned the ball and was this unaffected by the inadvertent whistle.

[yarnnelg]

Don't depend on the chorus of whistles you hear.

The White Hat puts the whistle into his mouth then starts the signal before the Ole Miss player crosses the line. On the clip Calhoun supplied when he has a frozen picture ....the rest of that clip distinctly shows the White Hat putting the whistle in his mouth and starting his signal. Until I saw that clip in it's entirety I was beginning to be convinced every was done after the Ole Miss player slides into the end zone.

Instant replay, according to the SEC, shows nothing to overturn. The fact that "R" and "L" come together ...is telling ...short conversation mike switched on and announced that the ball was not touched and the result was a touchback.

If the ball was touched beyond the five ......recovery five yards deep in the end zone is not "Immediate"

I still think they blew it and both stadium and SEC Headquarters had nothing to delay review again then overturn.

[yarnnelg]

Want to know how much being stupid cost Kiffin?

Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin afterward lamented the call and retweeted a fan on Twitter who called the SEC’s officiating disgraceful while claiming Auburn was gifted another win. That action led to the SEC fining Kiffin $25,000 on Monday, but not before the Rebels' first-year coach had a discussion with SEC head of officiating John McDaid earlier in the day and then publicly expressed frustration with the league’s lack of transparency

Well, it's good to know Kiffin is contributing to the food provided to each Officiating Crew the rest of the year ......

[CalhounLJ]

Want to know how much being stupid cost Kiffin?

Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin afterward lamented the call and retweeted a fan on Twitter who called the SEC’s officiating disgraceful while claiming Auburn was gifted another win. That action led to the SEC fining Kiffin $25,000 on Monday, but not before the Rebels' first-year coach had a discussion with SEC head of officiating John McDaid earlier in the day and then publicly expressed frustration with the league’s lack of transparency

Well, it's good to know Kiffin is contributing to the food provided to each Officiating Crew the rest of the year ......

Maybe stupid. May be willing to spend chump change out of his multi million dollar contract to call attention to incompetent (at best) replay booth. It’s not the first time it’s happened. This year. I kinda suspected you had an agenda when you posted this the way you did. Now I’m certain. Why don’t we stick to the facts of officiating and leave the name calling out? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

In my opinion that was definitely quick enough to award a recovery and touchdown. The player who ends up with the ball is already at the goal line and going into his slide to recover the ball when the whistle is sounded and the signal is given. The Team B player who touched the ball had already turned away, so him not going after the ball is irrelevant to continuing action. It’s not like he saw the signal or heard the whistle and then walked away. He had already abandoned the ball and was this unaffected by the inadvertent whistle.

Are you looking at the same video as I am?  R puts whistle in his mouth as the B player is crossing the 5 yard line and the A player is still near the 20 yard line.  Just after the R puts the whistle in his mouth the B player stops and looks directly at the R.  That indicates to me that the R has sounded his whistle.  The A player at that point is just inside the 15.  Not sure how that can qualify as "immediate continuing action" if in fact the R knew that the B player stopped as he sounded his whistle with the A player still that far away.  IMHO when we can first hear a whistle on the video is not that important, but when the R first sounded the whistle is.

But the actual question is who has the final "immediate continuing action" call?  The official on the field who sounded the whistle and the R (the same in this case) or replay?

[ref6983]

Are you looking at the same video as I am?  R puts whistle in his mouth as the B player is crossing the 5 yard line and the A player is still near the 20 yard line.  Just after the R puts the whistle in his mouth the B player stops and looks directly at the R.  That indicates to me that the R has sounded his whistle.  The A player at that point is just inside the 15.  Not sure how that can qualify as "immediate continuing action" if in fact the R knew that the B player stopped as he sounded his whistle with the A player still that far away.  IMHO when we can first hear a whistle on the video is not that important, but when the R first sounded the whistle is.

But the actual question is who has the final "immediate continuing action" call?  The official on the field who sounded the whistle and the R (the same in this case) or replay?

What the onfield officials do or don’t do with the whistle or signals has absolutely nothing to do with how replay rules on this play. The actions of the player(s) during the loose ball are all that matters.

The Ole Miss player never pauses from running directly to the ball. The fact that he recovers before the ball stops moving is another good indicator that he recovered in the immediate continuing action. Replay erred in not stopping and reversing to an Ole Miss touchdown.