Blown Up Screen

[TXMike]

Good one on Rom Gilbert's site this week:
"This play was intended to be a screen pass.  However, as the play developed, the receiver and blockers moved further downfield.  When the receiver was making the play on the ball he was beyond the NZ (as were his linemen).  Can he be legally contacted before the ball arrives if he is beyond the NZ?  (7-3-8-c)   Some have said this should have been flagged as a  high hit on a defenseless receiver (9-1-4 new for 2010) The viewers can decide for themselves."

I know many conferences use "philosophy" to be very loose about behind or beyond the NZ on screens and intended screens but surely they would want a flag for DPI here?  

[yt=425,350]2QIj9ZrpeiY[/yt]

[Atlanta Blue]

Not sure if the defender hit the receiver in the head, or just blasted him between the shoulder blades, snapping the head back.  So:

High hit on a defenseless receiver?  Maybe, hard to tell.

Regardless, if you consider the receiver on or behind the line (and I don't), then it can't be DPI.  But if you consider him behind the line, it's both DPI and Ineligible Downfield, so the fouls will offset.

Replay the down.

[TXMike]

63 is the farthest downfield and he is barely three yards when ball is released so no ineligibles downfield.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'll go with AB here and say that it's close but the 3-yard rule was put in to allow linemen who are engaged to avoid ineligible calls if they stay engaged up to three yards from the NZ.  Based on that 63 has 0 leeway in my rule book and he's at three when the ball is released, and well beyond by the time is crosses.  I've got ineligible downfield.  That being said, the hit is hard but IMO not illegal, and probably a good non-call on the ineligible since it's so close.

[TXMike]

I'll go with AB here and say that it's close but the 3-yard rule was put in to allow linemen who are engaged to avoid ineligible calls if they stay engaged up to three yards from the NZ.  Based on that 63 has 0 leeway in my rule book and he's at three when the ball is released, and well beyond by the time is crosses.  I've got ineligible downfield.  That being said, the hit is hard but IMO not illegal, and probably a good non-call on the ineligible since it's so close.

1 - Rule was changed this year to permit linemen to go 3 yards even if not engaged

2 - We need to know where the lineman was at the moment the ball is released.  That is what matters, not when the ball crosess the NZ

3 - You are saying this is NOT DPI?

[NVFOA_Ump]

1 - Rule was changed this year to permit linemen to go 3 yards even if not engaged

2 - We need to know where the lineman was at the moment the ball is released.  That is what matters, not when the ball crosess the NZ

3 - You are saying this is NOT DPI?

1.  Understood but I've still got 0 leeway - the 3 yds is all the leeway he gets.
2.  The instant anyone of us could actually see the ball released and turn to see the limeman's position he's beyond 3, who and how do we get both simultaneously?
3.  If we're giving the downfield lineman the "benefit of the doubt" (the crew obviously did), I'm giving the defender the same "benefit of the doubt" in apparently ruling that he's close enough to the NZ to be not be considered beyond.

[Atlanta Blue]

1 - Rule was changed this year to permit linemen to go 3 yards even if not engaged

Actually, it was changed in 2009, but I still thought #63 was 4 yards downfield when the ball was released.

2 - We need to know where the lineman was at the moment the ball is released.  That is what matters, not when the ball crosess the NZ

True, but you also need to know IF it crosses the NZ.  If it doesn't, where they were is immaterial.

3 - You are saying this is NOT DPI?

I have DPI, but probably no high hit on a defenseless receiver.

[Sonofanump]

I agree.  We have both DPI & IDF or nothing here. 

[Dakota Dan]

If you freeze it when the QB just releases the ball the O-lineman back leg is 2.5 yards downfield (this is how the graders will grade it)... therefore no IDP.  As far as the DPI goes, this is too bang-bang of a hit to hang your hat on with a DPI call and be constant in calling this all game long... best to stay off this one.  The OSU player launches himself into the head area of the Iowa RB with no attempt to wrap his arms up, this is a foul in accordance to RR targeting/high hits video from Sept 19th... flag this for an UNR and your supervisor will support you everytime.

[Diablo]

 
The OSU player launches himself into the head area of the Iowa RB with no attempt to wrap his arms up, this is a foul in accordance to RR targeting/high hits video from Sept 19th... flag this for an UNR and your supervisor will support you everytime.

Agree the defender has other options, but chose to launch himself upward.  Yes, the receiver appears to duck a bit.  But the defender is climbing that ladder

[TXMike]

The play made Dave Parry's accountability video this week.  He says there was DPI and Inelig Downfield that should have been flagged.

[Dakota Dan]

He has also said that a flag thrown for a crackback block by a RB was a correct call.... just saying...

[TXMike]

Yep but when it was pointed out where the RB came from he changed his ruling.  What can be pointed out here that might get him to change?

[Dakota Dan]

To call DPI or not is up to conference philosophy... not much you can do there... The conference I am in would say this is a bang/bang play and to leave it alone; however, as i pointed out in an earlier post, if you freeze the film when the passer just releases the ball, the OG is only 2.5 yards down field and within the limits for NCAA rules...therefore, not a foul for IDP. 

[TXMike]

Great minds think alike!!  Who would get the DPI anyway?  U's don't even know how to spell DPI and flanks look blocked.

[Dakota Dan]

Take your pick, the RB is the 3rd man in and therefore the LJ's man.  The HL has the 5 yard belt and should be on top of this too.  I still think that either way this is a UNR-HDR targeting the head area... I would put the U, L and H on it for a NC.

[MJT]

Saw the play live and thought DPI, and still think DPI. I agree that a UNR would be supported by our supervisors.

[RMAC Deep Guy]

I like this for UNR for sure.  This is a targeting foul.  Look at how the defender launches himself toward the receiver.  This is exactly the type of hits we want out of the game.  As for DPI, I would say no as it is a bang-bang play and our conferences want us to stay away from these type of DPI fouls.

[MJT]

I would not say that is not a bang bang play. He played through the back, and it was definitely early. They want us to stay away from bang bang plays also, but I don't feel this is one of them.

[RMAC Deep Guy]

I would not say that is not a bang bang play. He played through the back, and it was definitely early. They want us to stay away from bang bang plays also, but I don't feel this is one of them.

After looking at it again, I agree.  Wasn't bang-bang.  After further review, DPI.

[Dakota Dan]

Whether or not the DPI should be called or not (and I am leaning towards DPI over bang-bang too) does not matter because it would be a spot foul and the targeting foul would trump it with the full 15 yard mark off...

[Bob]

All great comments.  From the field, lineman appeared good and film confirms this.  No high hit due to chest of defender contacting shoulders of receiver that bent over to catch pass.  Appeared to be slightly early but not enough to call at the time.  Film shows slightly early.  Would receiver had caught the ball without the contact?  Not saying uncatchable pass but simply was receiver at disadvantage to catch the ball.  Was the foul "big"?  Did the player getting injured influence your opinion?  Did we get it right?  Who knows.  Grading showed played officiated correctly.  Comments welcome.  #7 was hit with UNR earlier for targeting helmet to helmet.

[TXMike]

I thought this play made Parry's accountability video?

Accountability video 6  Play  31   He says it was a missed DPI amd a missed inelig downfield.  I can understand the missed DPI but I don't see the missed inelig downfield