Rom Gilbert's Videos

[TXMike]

Each week RG has a selection of 5 or more video clips, most of which have not been posted here. This is his video clip page:  http://www.romgilbert.us/video10.htm

This week's clips are at:   http://www.romgilbert.us/vidclip7.htm

This week has a clip that shows one of the many "hypothetical" plays we have dissected in depth, a fair catch signaller who muffs the kick but is then prevented from completing the catch by Team A.  

[Atlanta Blue]

OK, I can shed some light on this one, I was working the game as the Official Scorer. 

When I saw the officials gather after the play, I told my crew, "Hold on, I don't think Georgia is going to get this ball."  They thought I was nuts.

The play happened in the first half, and I met with the replay official at halftime.  (You can look him up if you would like, I won't give his name here).  I stated my understanding of the rule, and was told I was exactly right.  So I then asked, "So did the officials JUDGE that the receiver didn't have a chance of making the catch after the muff?"

His response: "Yes, they must have JUDGED that.  And it is completely a JUDGMENT call.  I can't review that, that's their JUDGMENT."

Let's just say, in order to keep anyone from getting into hot water, that I am not sure he agreed with their JUDGMENT.  But was the on-field official's JUDGMENT that the ball bounced far enough away from the receiver that he would not have had a chance to complete the catch.  It is NOT a reviewable call.

Did I emphasize the word JUDGMENT enough in this post?

[TXMike]

[yt=425,350]RFFs3-uu_gg[/yt]

[TxSkyBolt]

I'm more impressed that the announcer knew the rule....who was it?

[Welpe]

Interesting play.  I'm inclined to give the B team player the benefit of the doubt and flag this for KCI.  Yes he screwed up in muffing the kick but I think he still had a chance to catch it.  Either way, the ball is dead as soon as the A team player possesses it so the face mask foul would be a dead ball personal foul.

[TXMike]

I'm more impressed that the announcer knew the rule....who was it?

Andre Ware

[GameWillTravel]

If you stop the film you can see Team A is the same Distance as Team B at the apex during the muff. Team B had a chance to regain poss. Miss Call. 

[Atlanta Blue]

If you stop the film you can see Team A is the same Distance as Team B at the apex during the muff. Team B had a chance to regain poss. Miss Call. 

Distance at the apex has nothing to do with it.  The ball could have been 6' from the receiver and 3' from the defender, but it doesn't matter.  The ball was moving away from the receiver and toward the defender.  But that in itself isn't the issue either.

Did they miss it?  Maybe, the replay official implied they did.  But the only questions isn't who was closer, it was, "Did the receiver have an opportunity to complete the catch?"  That is a little more questionable.

The good news is, the officials got together and discussed the rule.  They knew the rule, they got that right.  You may not like their JUDGMENT, but I know us coaches aren't allowed to argue that!

[TXMike]

The good news is, the officials got together and discussed the rule.  They knew the rule, they got that right.  You may not like their JUDGMENT, but I know us coaches aren't allowed to argue that!

No you are not.  But we highly trained professionals are!   

[NVFOA_Ump]

Did I emphasize the word JUDGMENT enough in this post?

IMO you were very discrete regarding the judgments!

[ABoselli]

Boy, that guy was so judgmental.....

[MrFbOfficial]

Each week RG has a selection of 5 or more video clips, most of which have not been posted here. This is his video clip page:  http://www.romgilbert.us/video10.htm

This week's clips are at:   http://www.romgilbert.us/vidclip7.htm

This week has a clip that shows one of the many "hypothetical" plays we have dissected in depth, a fair catch signaller who muffs the kick but is then prevented from completing the catch by Team A.  

TXMike,

Thank you very much for sharing this link with us... looks like an excellent site and source for officials!

[refdawg]

has anyone given any consideration to the idea that maybe they ruled it was not a valid FC signal?  In looking at the replay, it certainly can be argued his signal was not valid.   It looked like about a half-FC signal to me.  Just a thought. 

[Diablo]

has anyone given any consideration to the idea that maybe they ruled it was not a valid FC signal?  In looking at the replay, it certainly can be argued his signal was not valid.   It looked like about a half-FC signal to me.  Just a thought. 

When was the last time you saw a strictly valid fair catch signal - hand clearly above the head and waved from one side of his body to the other side, more than once?

[Atlanta Blue]

Got the SEC's feedback on the muffed fair catch last week.

The crew got it right.  According to Rogers Redding, the purpose of the rule is protect the player from being hit after muffing the ball, not to give him free rein to "recover" a ball that has bounced away from him.  In this case, the defense did nothing to interfere with the receiver's ability to catch the kick, the receiver muffed the ball away from himself and toward the defender.  The defender does not have to get away from the ball, he simply can't touch the receiver to keep him away from it.

But the crew was dinged for missing the face mask foul.


I also stopped by the TV booth and thanked Andre Ware for knowing the rule and speaking up about it.  He said there's a reason he carries a copy of the NCAA rule book with him.  An announcer that not only HAS a rule book, but reads it.  That's impressive.

[TXMike]

My jaw is on the floor.  This is going to be a shocker to lots of folks.  I wnder if he feels the same way about KCI when there is no signal.  Can A catch the ball as long as they do not touch B? ? ? ?

[Diablo]

Interesting play. 
Either way, the ball is dead as soon as the A team player possesses it so the face mask foul would be a dead ball personal foul.

Was the Team A player in possession when he was offended by the face mask foul?  Did he have "firm control" of the ball?  If that were a live-ball foul, how would it afftect the outcome of the play ... either way?

[Atlanta Blue]

Was the Team A player in possession when he was offended by the face mask foul?  Did he have "firm control" of the ball? 

Yes and yes

If that were a live-ball foul, how would it afftect the outcome of the play ... either way?

It shouldn't be a live ball foul.  Once Georgia gained possession, the ball was dead.  It should have been a DBF, and Georgia would have gotten an additional 15 yards.

[Diablo]

Quote from: Diablo on Yesterday at 06:11:08 AM
If that were a live-ball foul, how would it afftect the outcome of the play ... either way?

It shouldn't be a live ball foul.  Once Georgia gained possession, the ball was dead.  It should have been a DBF, and Georgia would have gotten an additional 15 yards.

C'mon Blue.  Don't stifle the mental exercise from a "whatiffy".
Did you know that, presently, neuronal stimulation and potentiation is the only known antidote for Alzheimer's disease?

What if?
The ball was still loose when B24 grabbed & twisted A5's face mask.  Subsequently, grounded A5 recovered the ball.  A5 (a) was or (b) was not guilty of interfering with B24's opportunity to complete the catch. 

[Welpe]

Diablo, Blue is much like me, a buzzkill sometimes.   

I'll play:

In (a), Team A got the ball with dirty hands.  The fouls will offset, replay the down.

In (b), Team A got the ball with clean hands.  They can either keep the ball by declining the penalty or they can accept the penalty which will be enforced from the previous spot.  Either way it will be 1st and 10 for Team A.