Katy Paetow vs College Station DOF

[ElvisLives]

Our consistency would be all over the place if we tried to apply some type of "intent".  Once crew may thing 1 yard in the backfield is far enough to lose protection while others may thing it's 2 yards or something else.  It's much easier to just use ALL backs are not protected as the rule is written.

And, if a, or some, coordinator(s) think(s) that should be changed, then, by all means, lobby the Rules Committee for a change. But, don’t unilaterally interpret the rule to, effectively, change the rule without authorization, concurrence or direction from the Committee and/or the Rules Interpreter.

[bctgp]

Just to dispel the misconception, the back in question was 3-yards behind the LOS, not 1-yard. Ball was on B-17 and back was lined up on B-20.  Video clearly shows this.

[TexDoc]

And, if a, or some, coordinator(s) think(s) that should be changed, then, by all means, lobby the Rules Committee for a change. But, don’t unilaterally interpret the rule to, effectively, change the rule without authorization, concurrence or direction from the Committee and/or the Rules Interpreter.

 

[Rmars86]

This is what a Division 1 Coordinator opined to me: "This is a FST as this offensive player who moves is not protected as he is a back."

I mentioned in my post that I understand that a strict reading of the rules gives you a FST.

I talked to a different D1 guy than you who told me that he would give the calling official a marginal call or no grade on a FST because of the black and white rules.... but would want DOF 10 times out of 10 because of intent of the rule.  "There's no way the defense should get the benefit of that call". 

I guess you do what your coordinator tells you to do.  I stand by my DOF decision and understand that it's the less popular decision on this board.   Either way, I hope there is clarification on the national (or TASO) level on this type of play.

[JasonTX]

I mentioned in my post that I understand that a strict reading of the rules gives you a FST.

I talked to a different D1 guy than you who told me that he would give the calling official a marginal call or no grade on a FST because of the black and white rules.... but would want DOF 10 times out of 10 because of intent of the rule.  "There's no way the defense should get the benefit of that call". 

I guess you do what your coordinator tells you to do.  I stand by my DOF decision and understand that it's the less popular decision on this board.   Either way, I hope there is clarification on the national (or TASO) level on this type of play.

At what point does it become a FST?  The rules and AR are pretty clear and they used defined terms with Lineman and Back.  There isn't any gray area as to what a lineman is.  Unless you want to "declare " that back to have been a lineman that's the only way.  As the play showed he was pretty far off from meeting the definition of a lineman.

[Rmars86]

At what point does it become a FST?  The rules and AR are pretty clear and they used defined terms with Lineman and Back.  There isn't any gray area as to what a lineman is.  Unless you want to "declare " that back to have been a lineman that's the only way.  As the play showed he was pretty far off from meeting the definition of a lineman.

The player was a wingback, essentially one yard different than the lineman right next to him.  Yes, he's clearly a back by our definition, I wouldn't argue otherwise, but his role and responsibility on this play is much more similar to a lineman than a back.

The defender jumped into the neutral zone so far that he was essentially shoulder to shoulder with the TE, within the gap that the wing was responsible for.  The wing was "threatened" because if he did not react, the player would have been able to shoot the gap and been able to block the kick.  The defenders action caused an instinctual flinch from the wing.

If we allow this to be a FST, I don't like setting the precedent that a defense can essentially "attack" a wingback without impunity and that wing has to remain still.  If I'm a DC and in a tight spot (let's say Team A is 1/G at the B-1), I'm attacking that wing to see if I can get a free 5 yards.


Side note :
The definition that we typically use for "unabated" (2-18-2-e) states that it is DOF when the player "crosses the neutral zone and charges toward a Team A back".   It is usually used when talking about the QB, but I could see someone arguing that it applies here. 

[dammitbobby]

If we allow this to be a FST, I don't like setting the precedent that a defense can essentially "attack" a wingback without impunity and that wing has to remain still.  If I'm a DC and in a tight spot (let's say Team A is 1/G at the B-1), I'm attacking that wing to see if I can get a free 5 yards.

Side note :
The definition that we typically use for "unabated" (2-18-2-e) states that it is DOF when the player "crosses the neutral zone and charges toward a Team A back".   It is usually used when talking about the QB, but I could see someone arguing that it applies here.

This is essentially what I was saying earlier - as written, the rule gives a free pass to the defense.  We're all in agreement I think on what a strict interpretation of the rule is. 

I don't the the unabated argument hold up though - the AR references in 2-18-2-e specifically mentions the defender charging towards the quarterback or kicker. 

[dammitbobby]

I emailed Steve Shaw with a link to the video, hopefully he will provide a definitive direction for this.

[JDM]

I emailed Steve Shaw with a link to the video, hopefully he will provide a definitive direction for this.

Good luck w/that.

As mentioned earlier in the string, a Div 1 Supervisor I sent the play to advised it is FST.

[JasonTX]

If some of you are going to give that back "protection", at what point do you not give him "protection"?  We can't say that sometimes a back is protected and sometimes he's not.  How do you explain to a coach on some plays in which you flagged team B on one play and then flagged team A on the next when both plays it was a back who reacted?  Being that we can't claim a back is sometimes protected, but what we can claim is that sometimes a player is protected, and we have a rule that explains when a player is protected.

[dammitbobby]

I think one way that could be resolved, is by creating an exception for scrimmage kicks formations, for backs immediately adjacent to the endmost lineman, but no more than 3 yards off the LOS.  This really is the only scenario where this would need to be relevant - it's obvious in this formation that the back is going to be used as a blocker to protect the corner of the line from a defender shooting the gap off the hip of the outside lineman.

Any other play scenario, I am good with the back being held accountable for FST, as the rule is currently written.   

I get the criticism.  I just don't think it's fair to give the defense the ability to essentially trap the back into a FST with no consequences, in this particular type of scrimmage down.  It's not so much as to protect the back from FST as much as it to to ensure that the defense can't get an unfair advantage by rule.

[Rmars86]

If some of you are going to give that back "protection", at what point do you not give him "protection"?  We can't say that sometimes a back is protected and sometimes he's not.  How do you explain to a coach on some plays in which you flagged team B on one play and then flagged team A on the next when both plays it was a back who reacted?  Being that we can't claim a back is sometimes protected, but what we can claim is that sometimes a player is protected, and we have a rule that explains when a player is protected.

I agree with Bobby's post above - this is a very specific, unique situation in regards to a scrimmage kick.  I won't pretend to be a rules editor.... but to your point about protection, we already have a mechanism in place for that which could be tweaked.    If the nose guard jumps in the NZ, the LT isn't protected from a FST, but the 2 guards are because it is potentially their gap responsibility.   I could see similar protections around a back who's gap is potentially threatened such as in this situation.

Or they could just issue an approved ruling with this kind of play and tell us exactly what they want.   My supervisor says he wants a DOF.  JDM states that their supervisor wants a FST.   Just tell me which to go with... or else I'm doing what my supervisor wants and I'll deal with whatever the fallout is.

[JasonTX]

I think one way that could be resolved, is by creating an exception for scrimmage kicks formations, for backs immediately adjacent to the endmost lineman, but no more than 3 yards off the LOS.  This really is the only scenario where this would need to be relevant - it's obvious in this formation that the back is going to be used as a blocker to protect the corner of the line from a defender shooting the gap off the hip of the outside lineman.

Any other play scenario, I am good with the back being held accountable for FST, as the rule is currently written.   

I get the criticism.  I just don't think it's fair to give the defense the ability to essentially trap the back into a FST with no consequences, in this particular type of scrimmage down.  It's not so much as to protect the back from FST as much as it to to ensure that the defense can't get an unfair advantage by rule.

Why would you limit it to just scrimmage kicks?  Wouldn't the "unfairness" be the same as for any other scrimmage play?  So, you think any back who is no more that 3 yards from the LOS should be protected?  I don't think this was an oversight by the rule makers.  Backs and Lineman have clear definitions.  The rule on who gets protection from FST fouls are clear as well. 

Just imagine how inconsistent it would be if you applied a "3 yard from LOS" philosophy.  Where is the 3 yards measured from?  I have a hard time seeing if a player is exactly 3 yards.  For me he might be 3.2 and don't get flagged.  For you he might be 2.9 and gets flagged.  That's not consistency.  Our job is hard enough as it is.  I'd much rather make sure we don't have more than 4 backs in the backfield.  I really don't want to have to add another task to that by determining how back and back really is.  Imagine telling a coach, "He's back-ish, but not back enough."

We already have a rule that prevents the defense from intentionally trying to create a FST.

[dammitbobby]

I can't think of another play scenario where the wing back would just block the gap (step down to fill the hole) instead of firing off to engage a defender, or run a route. 

3 yards is arbitrary, sure.  The point remains though that this specific example gave the defense a significant advantage where the wingback - who for all intents and purposes has the same role and responsibilities as a lineman - is penalized for reacting to a defender in his area of responsibility (his gap to defend.)  Like I said, I don't have an issue with the rule as written except in this very limited circumstance (scrimmage kick formation).  That said - if word comes down that we enforce as written, that's what I'll do, regardless of whether I like it or think it gives the defense an advantage.  I just think it warrants having a conversation to determine if it is in fact an unfair advantage that needs to be addressed either through a rule change, or philosophy or AR.

It would be nice to have clarity since two individuals have asked higher level coordinators how to handle, and gotten different responses.

[dammitbobby]

So I got a response back from Steve Shaw:

Thank you for the rules question.  I was not able to see the play, but your interpretation is correct.  If a Team B player enters the neutral zone causing a lineman to react - it is a foul on Team B.  If a back reacts, this would be a foul on Team A, unless Rule 7-1-5-a-4 applies.  This is something I will discuss with the rules committee, but I haven’t seen any appetite to include backs in Rule 7-1-5-a-2.

So guess that settles it - until a change is made, we should rule it as FST, not DOF, regardless or situation or circumstance.

[TexDoc]

So I got a response back from Steve Shaw:

Thank you for the rules question.  I was not able to see the play, but your interpretation is correct.  If a Team B player enters the neutral zone causing a lineman to react - it is a foul on Team B.  If a back reacts, this would be a foul on Team A, unless Rule 7-1-5-a-4 applies.  This is something I will discuss with the rules committee, but I haven’t seen any appetite to include backs in Rule 7-1-5-a-2.

So guess that settles it - until a change is made, we should rule it as FST, not DOF, regardless or situation or circumstance.

 

[JDM]

So I got a response back from Steve Shaw:

Thank you for the rules question.  I was not able to see the play, but your interpretation is correct.  If a Team B player enters the neutral zone causing a lineman to react - it is a foul on Team B.  If a back reacts, this would be a foul on Team A, unless Rule 7-1-5-a-4 applies.  This is something I will discuss with the rules committee, but I haven’t seen any appetite to include backs in Rule 7-1-5-a-2.

So guess that settles it - until a change is made, we should rule it as FST, not DOF, regardless or situation or circumstance.

"I was not able to see the play..."

In other words a video of the play was included or link provided in your email to Steve?

[dammitbobby]

Yeah I sent him a link to the youtube video, with the time it starts at (46:12), not sure why he couldn't see it.