FSU -OU Hit (video)

[TXMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZ7WwQFyQ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne-7NtsI7JY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0YkujfXto

Bet that OU player heard some interesting discussion before he was shooed away

[fencewire]

Thanks mike...

Looks like inside defender was targeting "more" than outside defender, in super super slow mo it sort of appears that 30 was "aiming" at the shoulder and the fall put his head in that zone.  21 however appears to have been aiming at the head all through, looks like a good pickup by the LJ to me....

[blindref757]

Can we learn from this...and possibly disagree without it being overly critical?

1.  Neither defender launched...their feet are on the ground.
2.  They both led with shoulders low...as the receiver fell backwards, he lowered himself.
3.  This is a brutal collision and it is very unfortunate that the receiver was injured...but by what definition is it illegal? 

[TXMike]

I know, I know..a "late flag" is not really indicative of much of anything but the L's flag (the only 1 of 4 sets of eyes on the play) seemed to come after the receiver was clearly showing symptoms of injury.  I wonder if that had any influence.  For the medical experts...is it possible for a player to be knocked out without his helmet being hit? 

Nonetheless....it does appear both tackler's shoulders hit the receiver in the head.  By definition, that is a foul.  Had he completed the catch and become a runner then the very same hit would have been legal IMHO.  It also might be worht considering the 2 tacklers had an option to go low but did not take it.  Perhaps they place themselve in danger of a flag for not doing so.

[JRutledge]

It look to me like they hit him in the head and not with their helmets. But the videos in my opinion are not entirely conclusive.

Peace

[copedaddy]

Seeing a hit like this at full speed with no replay (as we do on the field) I think its a flag. Both defenders went high and this is the type of play the NCAA wants out of the game. Like Mike said they could have gone lower.

[fencewire]

And when in doubt.....

It will be interesting if that makes a CFO video....

[Diablo]

Nonetheless....it does appear both tackler's shoulders hit the receiver in the head.  By definition, that is a foul.  Had he completed the catch and become a runner then the very same hit would have been legal IMHO. 

It appears that you think A81 is a defenseless player when he is hit by the two defenders.  And to transition out of being a defenseless player, A81 has to complete the catch.  If so, what should he have done to complete the catch?

[InsideTheStripes]

Seeing a hit like this at full speed with no replay (as we do on the field) I think its a flag. Both defenders went high and this is the type of play the NCAA wants out of the game. Like Mike said they could have gone lower.

The play was kind of a train wreck. The F is signalling touchdown while the S is signaling incomplete.  The B (rightfully) has no idea what's going on and looks to be just hanging out 2 yards into the end zone while the scrum is taking place in front of him. 

After all of that, a flag comes in from the L who was 30 yards way when the contact took place and is still 20+ yards away when he throws the flag.

All that said, I'm glad there ultimately was a flag on the ground.  The defenders took a risk by aiming high at the chest/shoulder level and got burned.  When in doubt...

[Welpe]

 

[Curious]

First, I hope the injured player is okay.  Anybody know?

What ever happened to the "head up-shoulder-wrap-up" technique? 

Seems like DBs have pretty much taken this "chest high-punish" tackling technique which, in turn, leads to helmet-to helmet fouls (or at least constant really tough decisions for the officials).  There seems to be no attempt to wrap up the runner/receiver in most of these instances.  That said, too often, IMO, "targeting" or illegal helmet contact fouls are called as the result of a move the RECEIVER makes after or during the catch.

Now, as for the play, from what I saw, there was a catch, then a fumble into the end zone, a recovery by the defense, and then (probably) an IW.  How did the play finally get adjudicated?

[Welpe]

Now, as for the play, from what I saw, there was a catch, then a fumble into the end zone, a recovery by the defense, and then (probably) an IW.  How did the play finally get adjudicated?

It was (correctly) ruled incomplete.

[InsideTheStripes]

First, I hope the injured player is okay.  Anybody know?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-09-18/sports/os-fsu-oklahoma-sidebar-0918-20110917_1_kenny-shaw-doak-campbell-stadium-fsu-coach-jimbo-fisher

[Sumstine]

One of those plays that the injury may have helped pull the flag. I think it's a great call because 21 came in with initial contact at the high sholder and moved up to the head.

[Curious]

It was (correctly) ruled incomplete.

To "Inside", thanks for the article; glad the kid's okay.

Now, Welpe, I can accept the flag; but (anybody) help me understand - from an NCAA rule perspective (I'm a High School official) - why this wasn't a catch and fumble.  It sure looked to me like he had possession, took two steps, got blasted, then fumbled.....

Also, if that (the catch and fumble) HAD happened, how should this play have been handled  (flag AND no flag)?

[mbyron]

1. The NCAA rules define a catch in terms of "firmly grasping" a live ball in flight and returning to the ground still firmly grasping it. The officials judged that the player did not have a firm grasp of the ball. The number of steps is irrelevant and no part of the rule.

2. If A catches a pass in the field of  play and then fumbles it into the (opponent's) end zone, it can be recovered for a touchdown by A or a touchback by B. The PF for the hit by B would be declined in the first case and accepted in the second in order to keep possession.

[TXMike]

Pretty hard to have a "firm grasp" when you are unconscious.

[Curious]

Pretty hard to have a "firm grasp" when you are unconscious.

Funny (not)....but he wasn't "unconscious" until after he had the ball in his possession and was hit.

Anyway, thanks "mbyron".  I'm still a little confused about the "returning to the ground" part.  Didn't the receiver return to the ground when his feet touched? Are we talking "the Process" - circa 2010 Bears/Lions?

[InsideTheStripes]

Now, Welpe, I can accept the flag; but (anybody) help me understand - from an NCAA rule perspective (I'm a High School official) - why this wasn't a catch and fumble.  It sure looked to me like he had possession, took two steps, got blasted, then fumbled.....

At game speed, I have no catch.  I would not have been able definitively rule that the receiver had a firm grasp of the ball.  When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed. (2-2-7-e)

In super slo-mo, I'd agree that you can make a good case for catch/fumble.

[Curious]

At game speed, I have no catch.  I would not have been able definitively rule that the receiver had a firm grasp of the ball.  When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed. (2-2-7-e)

In super slo-mo, I'd agree that you can make a good case for catch/fumble.

Thanks ITS

I know you're going to say: "I knew that SON OF A GUN would ask...."; but I will anyway.  Isn't that what "replay" is all about?

[mbyron]

At game speed, I have no catch.  I would not have been able definitively rule that the receiver had a firm grasp of the ball.  When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed. (2-2-7-e)

In super slo-mo, I'd agree that you can make a good case for catch/fumble.

And that's one of the problems with slow motion: many plays seem to be fouls, and many dropped passes look like catches when slowed down enough. The speed fools the brain into thinking a player has gained possession.

I like the no-catch here. The PF I'm not so sure about...

[Osric Pureheart]

The PF for the hit by B would be declined in the first case

Could they not carry it over?  It's a personal foul by the nonscoring team in a down that ended in a touchdown.

[InsideTheStripes]

I know you're going to say: "I knew that SON OF A GUN would ask...."; but I will anyway.  Isn't that what "replay" is all about?

Being "able to make a good case" for something isn't the standard under which a replay official operates.  The standard listed in the rule book is "beyond all doubt".  Do the replays show a catch beyond all doubt?  I don't think they do. 

That ball went from above his helmet to his belt to his lap and to the ground in the blink of an eye.

[Diablo]

I, too, think this is a catch and fumble. 
Airborne A81 grasps the ball with both hands, comes to the ground, takes a couple of steps backward (toward B's EZ), sees a defender closing in and presses the ball against his belly button, again with both hands.  He has firm control of the ball.  Subsequently, it is the simultaneous hits by the two defenders that causes A81 to lose the grip on the ball. 
BTW, at that time, A81 is no longer a defenseless player.   

[TXMike]

Funny (not)....but he wasn't "unconscious" until after he had the ball in his possession and was hit.

Anyway, thanks "mbyron".  I'm still a little confused about the "returning to the ground" part.  Didn't the receiver return to the ground when his feet touched? Are we talking "the Process" - circa 2010 Bears/Lions?

He did not demonstrate possession before the hit and after the hit you can tell he is unconscious by the reaction of the arms