Author Topic: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play  (Read 43526 times)

Offline wv ref

  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« on: October 29, 2011, 08:01:10 PM »
Just wanted to make sure my logic on this play is right.  HS guys before you respond please make sure you are familiar with NCAA rules.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-DoltcPIqw


Wade was properly ejected for a flagrant foul becase he 1) targeted a defenseless player and 2) led with the crown of his helmet.  The second one being the major reason for the ejection

The Vanderbilt player gave an invalid fair catch signal which  causes the ball to become dead when possessed by the receiving team.

What should of happened.

Because there were 2 fouls on the same thing the option is that of the official between

 Kick Catch Interference ( 15 yards from the spot)

Flagrant Personal Foul ( 15 yards from the succeeding spot)

The ball should have been dead as soon as it was picked up then there would have been a 15 yard penalty from that spot.  Since they picked it up in ran it should have been a delay of game on Vandy, but since there was not a whistle a) they probably didn't see the singal b) since there was no whistle its had to penalize vandy for taking off.

Either choice of penalty does not effect the state of the ejection.

Finally since they did let vandy run back the ball the choice was made to go with the personal foul call since it would allow 15 yards to be tacked to the end of the run.... therefore not sure why vandy declined the penalty

Offline backjudge85

  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 105
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2011, 08:29:30 PM »
It wasnt an INVALID fair catch signal.  He was shielding his eyes from the sun.  The ball remains live and in play.

Offline wv ref

  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2011, 08:36:22 PM »
just to clarify:  when I referred to an illegal fair catch signal I was referring to his left hand, not his right one above his head.  I initially thought he waived his left had for a fair catch now I am not sure he wasn't just trying to keep his balance.  but seems like it could deff be close to an invalid signal.

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 1859
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-45
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2011, 09:27:33 PM »
In the first part of the video, it did look like he gave an invalid fair catch signal with his left hand.  The close up replay showed he did not, in my opinion.

Best regards,

Brad

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2011, 09:36:41 PM »
I see no signal   And since the crew let the play continue they saw no invalid signal so erase the delay of game foul from consideration. 

The KCI has a specified enforcement spot so cannot be tacked on.  However, they could have have tacked on the personal foul targeting from the end of B's return.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 2866
  • FAN REACTION: +71/-101
  • High School (MA)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2011, 07:33:27 AM »
Either choice of penalty does not effect the state of the ejection.

Finally since they did let vandy run back the ball the choice was made to go with the personal foul call since it would allow 15 yards to be tacked to the end of the run.... therefore not sure why vandy declined the penalty

Since the foul occured during the kick play and the running play started after the foul, the only two options were penalty enforcement at the spot of the foul (the 22 + 15 yards / 37 yard line), or decline the penalty and take the result of the play (ball at the 50 yard line).  The obvious choice is decline the penalty and take the ball at the 50.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2011, 07:37:37 AM »
Since the foul occured during the kick play and the running play started after the foul, the only two options were penalty enforcement at the spot of the foul (the 22 + 15 yards / 37 yard line), or decline the penalty and take the result of the play (ball at the 50 yard line).  The obvious choice is decline the penalty and take the ball at the 50.
  no sir.  Fouls by A during he kick can have penalties enforced as a tack on (except KCI)

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2011, 07:52:10 AM »
The KCI has a specified enforcement spot so cannot be tacked on.  However, they could have have tacked on the personal foul targeting from the end of B's return.

Are you saying that the KCI is also a personal foul and Team B can take penalty enforcement for either?

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2011, 08:14:04 AM »
That's my story on this play.  The player targeted with the helmet.  Call it KCI, Call it targeting.  I am going with targeting.

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2011, 08:34:22 AM »
That's my story on this play.  The player targeted with the helmet.  Call it KCI, Call it targeting.  I am going with targeting.

I know that if DPI occurs as a result of an act which is consider a personal foul, Team A can take penalty enforcement for either.  But I don't see any support for the same 2X option for a KCI foul.   

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2011, 08:41:26 AM »
I don't see why not.  There are many single acts on the field that could be called multiple fouls.  and if you don't want to subscribe to that, then why not just say this is targeting and forget about the KCI part?

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 2866
  • FAN REACTION: +71/-101
  • High School (MA)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2011, 08:53:03 AM »
  no sir.  Fouls by A during he kick can have penalties enforced as a tack on (except KCI)

Then why did we end up snapping from the actual end of the run at the 50 yard line?  Didn't they simply call this KCI (not a personal foul) but ejected the offending player anyway?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2011, 11:05:27 AM by NVFOA_Ump »
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2011, 08:56:00 AM »
I don't see why not.  There are many single acts on the field that could be called multiple fouls.  and if you don't want to subscribe to that, then why not just say this is targeting and forget about the KCI part?

If a Team A player committed KCI by tackling the punt receiver, would you give Team B the option to take the 10 yard (holding) penalty as a tack on?

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2011, 08:57:05 AM »
Then why did we end up snapping from the actual end of the run at the 50 yard line? 

Probably the same question the Vandy coach would ask if he knew the rules. 

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2011, 08:58:34 AM »
If a Team A player committed KCI by tackling the punt receiver, would you give Team B the option to take the 10 yard (holding) penalty as a tack on?

After seeing this play I would.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 2866
  • FAN REACTION: +71/-101
  • High School (MA)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2011, 09:00:49 AM »
Do we know exactly what the call on the field was?
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2011, 09:02:27 AM »
KCI, declined, but player ejected

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2011, 09:06:29 AM »
After seeing this play I would.

Take a look at AR 6-4-1-II
A Team B player, about to catch a scrimmage kick, is tackled before
the ball arrives but catches the kick while he is falling. RULING:
Kick-catch interference. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the foul.
Disqualification of the Team A player if the contact is flagrant. If the
foul is between the goal lines, enforcement is from the spot of the foul
and Team B puts the ball in play by a snap; if behind Team B’s goal line,
award a touchback and penalize from the succeeding spot. The ruling
would be the same had the kick been muffed or fumbled. The ruling
is also the same on an unsuccessful field goal attempt since Team B
touched the ball beyond the neutral zone.


And AR 6-4-1-VIII
Fourth and 10 at the 50-yard line. B17 is at Team B’s 20-yard line and in
position to catch Team A’s high scrimmage kick. During the downward
flight of the ball, A37 contacts B17 viciously and flagrantly before he
touches the ball. A37 did not alter his speed or make any attempt to
elude B17. RULING: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with
the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the
foul. A37 is disqualified.

Don't see any mention of tack on for personal foul.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2011, 09:12:25 AM »
That is because neither one of them include a significant run  by B after the foul.  These are not really the same situation as what happened in this game. 

In the first AR play the 10 yard tack on would be less than what they get with the 15 yard KCI.  And in the second one, we don't even know how the play ends so cannot judge on tack on.

(Good tries though as they almost made me change my hard-headed mind)   ;)

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 2866
  • FAN REACTION: +71/-101
  • High School (MA)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2011, 11:10:13 AM »
So back to the original question - if the only logged penalty here was KCI during the kick play as it appears, where would the ball end up if the KCI had been accepted?
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2011, 11:14:21 AM »
B37

Offline wv ref

  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2011, 01:22:48 PM »
The Call on the field was a PF ,

To me this most closely resembles this AR in the rule book

7-3-9
e. Contact by Team B with an eligible receiver involving a personal foul that
interferes with the reception of a catchable pass may be ruled either as
pass interference or as a personal foul with the 15-yard penalty enforced
from the previous spot. Rule 7-3-8 is specific about contact during a pass.
However, if the interference involves an act that ordinarily would result in
disqualification, the fouling player must leave the game.

also just to give the rulebook quote for the reason it doesn't matter that it was before the change of possession

SECTION 1. Personal Fouls
All fouls in this section (unless noted) and any other acts of unnecessary
roughness are personal fouls. For flagrant personal fouls mandating conference
review, see Rule 9-6. The penalties for all personal fouls are as follows:
PENALTY—Personal foul. 15 yards. For dead-ball fouls, 15 yards from the
succeeding spot. Automatic first down for fouls by Team B if
not in conflict with other rules. Penalties for Team A live-ball
personal fouls behind the neutral zone are enforced from the
previous spot. Safety if the live-ball foul occurs behind Team
A’s goal line [S7, S24, S34, S38, S39, S40, S41, S45 or S46].
Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified [S47].
For Team A fouls during free or scrimmage kick plays:
Enforcement may be at the previous spot or the spot where
the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B

There for my best guess is Vandy did not understand what would have happened had the accepted the penalty, or it was improperly explained.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8466
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2011, 01:35:26 PM »
It does matter that the foul was pre possession by B.  The "tack on" will only apply if it was that way because the tack on only applies to kick plays.  Once B starts the return it is no longer a kick play, it is a running play.  In most cases a foul by A during B's return would be enforced from where B's run ends but there are (as always) exceptions.  Ex:
B returns 10 yards, fumbles and another B player recovers and advances 10 more yards.  If A fouled during the first B run that penalty could not be enforced from the end of B's 2d run.  But this is not a "tack on" enforcement, this is a simple 3 and 1 enforcement.

And on a play just like this video there would almost never be a reason to even give B an option.  The choice is obvious.  I suppose if this was the last play of a quarter B might choose to decline the penalty so quarter would end but that would be rare.

Offline wv ref

  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2011, 01:41:24 PM »
I was trying to keep from singling out a particular post but I did misspeak so let me rephrase,

The previously quoted ruling is why we don't rekick.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2011, 03:53:15 PM »
The call was NOT KCI, but "deliberate personal foul".  Use this link, and listen at the 2:05 mark.  The words "kick catch interference" were never used, nor was that penalty recorded in the official play by play.  The announcement was, "Personal foul, deliberate personal foul, #1 of the kicking team.  The Penalty is declined, the result of the play is a first down, however #1 is ejected."


You Tube of broadcast without ESPN announcers

Given that it was a personal foul and not KCI, the foul should have been tacked on.  It should not have even been a choice, just enforce it.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2011, 03:55:47 PM by Atlanta Blue »