Author Topic: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play  (Read 36096 times)

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8406
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-239
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2011, 10:34:18 AM »
I am starting to feel like Clayton Moore!



Tonto, where the HECK are you? ?

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8406
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-239
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #51 on: October 31, 2011, 10:37:33 AM »
All those are separated in time and one would stand as a foul in the absence of the other two.

Assume the returner had not moved to get in position to make a play on the ball.  The act by the Ark player is still a foul.  Assume the Ark player had gone into the midsection with a shoulder against the returner who DID move to make the catch.  That act is still a foul.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 10:41:56 AM by TXMike »

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #52 on: October 31, 2011, 10:38:33 AM »
You have more than one act in the KCI play.  It was KCI whether he targeted or not as he was too close.  The targeting is another foul.

If the Team A player did not get to close (KCI), would there have been a targeting (PF) foul?  And vice versa? 
Both are inseparable.

Offline zebra99

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #53 on: October 31, 2011, 10:45:15 AM »
You have more than one act in the KCI play.  It was KCI whether he targeted or not as he was too close.  The targeting is another foul.

I totally disagree that there is more than one act in the KCI play - the act is the physical action by the K player, nothing separated by time or place.  Your argument is that there is more than one foul arising from one signal physical act.

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1849
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #54 on: October 31, 2011, 10:50:22 AM »
I personally don't see a problem with one act constituting two separate fouls. In something this egregious, do we really want to split hairs on whether or not we can tack on 15 well deserved yards at the end of B's run? We're already willing to stretch the definition of immediate in the rulebook for a HCT in the name of safety, I don't see the harm in calling this a flagrant PF in addition to KCI for the same reason.

Edit: Mike, I'll stand with you. It's good to keep the pot stirred once in a while.  :sTiR:
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 10:58:30 AM by Welpe »

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #55 on: October 31, 2011, 10:51:50 AM »
And we know the rules trump the ARs anyway. 

Dear Kimosabe,

That ain't in the rule book no more.

Tonto

PS   Your own your own

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8406
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-239
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #56 on: October 31, 2011, 10:58:05 AM »
Oh no I am not.  I have a secret weapon and you know who it is.  Just waiting for the right time to drop it.

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 256
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #57 on: October 31, 2011, 01:15:56 PM »
I am with Mike on this one.  Where does it say a personal foul cannot be called if it is also KCI?  Where does it say that penalties have priorities (KCI trumps a personal foul).  Does it also say that a defensive player that slaps the center in the head before the ball is snapped must be charged with offsides?

There is a penalty for KCI. ^flag

There is a penalty for a personal foul.   ^flag

Both rules were violated.  Give the offended team the option to take the one that benefits them more than the other. yEs:

 :sTiR:

Offline ALRef

  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #58 on: October 31, 2011, 03:15:45 PM »
I agree, what's announced doesn't have "judicial effect". however, it IS how we determine what is recorded in the official scoring report.  Announcing it as a personal foul and enforcing it as KCI is an error.

SHOULD it have been enforced as KCI?  Quite probably, so possibly the only error is in announcing the wrong foul.  And I'm not too hung up on the "deliberate" part, only suggesting that "flagrant" would have been a better word.

AR 6-4-1-VIII as has already been quoted - "Ruling: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. 15 yards from the spot of the foul." So, announcing flagrant personal foul and enforcing as KCI is completely correct. It does not say "from the spot of the foul or the dead ball spot." And, I believe the announcement in the game was the word "flagrant" and not "deliberate."

Also, how many times have you seen this type of play? It's plays like this that lead to rule/editorial changes to make the penalty enforcements more clear and consistent.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8406
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-239
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2011, 03:17:24 PM »
Dave - Pick up your gift at the door.   tiphat:
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 03:25:07 PM by TXMike »

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 634
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-10
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #60 on: October 31, 2011, 04:00:41 PM »
Here's another wrench in the cog...could you possibly have thrown a DB UC for taunting after the Flagrant PF/KCI and ejection? Could we have told Vandy, "You can take the KCI from the spot of the foul(22) add 15 yards for KCI (37) and another 15 for the dead ball tanting(B48)?

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8406
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-239
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #61 on: October 31, 2011, 04:17:03 PM »
The taunt appears to have taken place during live ball action so might be a stretch to enforce as dead ball.  You can only enforce 1 live ball foul.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #62 on: October 31, 2011, 07:22:55 PM »
And, I believe the announcement in the game was the word "flagrant" and not "deliberate."

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 can hear it at the 2:07 mark of this version of the play:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yziMVn0TGSw&feature=player_embedded,


As for the quoted AR, you are correct, it creates a conflict with it's wording.  In full, here is the AR:

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.

The ruling calls it a "flagrant personal foul", but then further defines it as "interfernce with the opportunity to catch a kick".  It then says the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, which is consistent with KCI, but inconsistent with the "flagrant personal foul".  I think this case play assumes there was not a further advancement by B.  Had there not been an advancement by B, this whole discussion is a moot point.  But because there was, it points out the conflict in the ruling.  Is this a "flagrant peronal foul", or is it "interference with the opportunity to catch a kick"?  The AR says it is both, but only gives the enforcement of the latter.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 08:24:47 PM by Atlanta Blue »

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #63 on: October 31, 2011, 07:57:13 PM »



As for the quoted AR, you are correct, it creates a conflict with it's wording.  In full, here is the AR:

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.

The ruling calls it a "flagrant personal foul", but then further defines it as "interfernce with the opportunity to catch a kick".  It then says the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, which is consistent with KCI, but inconsistent with the "flagrant personal foul".  I think this case play assumes there was not a further advancement by B.  Had there not been an advancement by B, this whole discussion is a moot point.  But because there was, it points out the conflict in the ruling.  Is this a "flagrant peronal foul", or is it "interference with the opportunity to catch a kick"?  The AR says it is both, but only gives the enforcement of the latter.

I don't see a conflict in the Ruling calling the act a flagrant PF then referring to it as KCI.  The personal foul caused the interference.  Similarly, DPI can be caused a hold, push in the back or PF.   

If the author of the AR wanted us to be able to choose between PF & KCI, he would have stated that Team B had the option to take penalty enforcement for either the KCI (15 yards from the spot of the foul) or PF (15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down).

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #64 on: October 31, 2011, 08:27:18 PM »
If the author of the AR wanted us to be able to choose between PF & KCI, he would have stated that Team B had the option to take penalty enforcement for either the KCI (15 yards from the spot of the foul) or PF (15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down).

Or PF, enforced from the end of the run, which would have been the choice here if it was called a PF instead of KCI.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #65 on: October 31, 2011, 08:38:45 PM »
Wade at a press conference today.  What a fine example of the English language by a COLLEGE STUDENT!

http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?SPSID=30726&SPID=2419&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=6100&id=809744

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8406
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-239
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #66 on: October 31, 2011, 08:53:41 PM »
He shows great promise as a future commontater tot.  Will fit in right beside the legends like Mussberger, Holtz and Gumble. 

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 2838
  • FAN REACTION: +71/-101
  • High School (MA)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #67 on: November 01, 2011, 06:50:15 AM »
Or PF, enforced from the end of the run, which would have been the choice here if it was called a PF instead of KCI.

But except for the ambiguity in the announcement of the foul, wasn't this enforced exactly as the 6-4 KCI penalty enforcement statement reads:

PENALTY—For foul between the goal lines: Receiving team’s ball, first down, 15 yards beyond the spot of the foul for an interference foul [S33]. For foul behind the goal line: Award a touchback and penalize from the succeeding spot. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified [S47].

We had KCI on team A, and the flagrant offender was disqualified.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline busman

  • *
  • Posts: 1261
  • FAN REACTION: +49/-63
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #68 on: November 01, 2011, 08:02:00 AM »
He was educated in Florida and New Jersey his first 19 years.  We've only had him for 9 months.  At least we have him saying "Yes, sir" instead of "yeah, man".

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #69 on: November 01, 2011, 08:20:03 AM »
He was educated in Florida and New Jersey his first 19 years.

That's debatable.  And I'm not doubting where he lived.

Offline busman

  • *
  • Posts: 1261
  • FAN REACTION: +49/-63
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #70 on: November 01, 2011, 09:45:44 AM »
Isn't Jacksonville considered south Georgia?

Offline ALRef

  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #71 on: November 01, 2011, 09:55:34 AM »
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 can hear it at the 2:07 mark of this version of the play:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yziMVn0TGSw&feature=player_embedded,


As for the quoted AR, you are correct, it creates a conflict with it's wording.  In full, here is the AR:

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.

The ruling calls it a "flagrant personal foul", but then further defines it as "interfernce with the opportunity to catch a kick".  It then says the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, which is consistent with KCI, but inconsistent with the "flagrant personal foul".  I think this case play assumes there was not a further advancement by B.  Had there not been an advancement by B, this whole discussion is a moot point.  But because there was, it points out the conflict in the ruling.  Is this a "flagrant peronal foul", or is it "interference with the opportunity to catch a kick"?  The AR says it is both, but only gives the enforcement of the latter.

The audio on the clip isn't very good. I was there. The word announced was "flagrant". The AR doesn't assume anything. It simply says the enforcement is from the spot of the foul. Period. It doesn't say "or the dead ball spot." It is one foul - KCI.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8406
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-239
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #72 on: November 01, 2011, 10:05:13 AM »
Do you agree that DPI can be omore than 1 foul?  If so, how do you square that with your assertion KCI can only be 1 foul?

Offline ALRef

  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #73 on: November 01, 2011, 10:26:43 AM »
Do you agree that DPI can be omore than 1 foul?  If so, how do you square that with your assertion KCI can only be 1 foul?

Yes, I agree that DPI can be more than one foul because Rule 7-3-9-e specifically allows for it. Unfortuantely there is no such allowance for KCI - yet. Like I said earlier, it's plays like this that lead to rule/editorial changes.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8406
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-239
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #74 on: November 01, 2011, 10:35:22 AM »
So let me get this straight.....BamaBoy, MacDaddy, Devil Boy, et al.....

You are saying that had the Vandy player NOT been making any attempt to catch this punt and this very same hit took place, you would support a 15 yard tack on to the end of the subsequent Vandy return.  But because he WAS trying to make an attempt to make the catch, his team loses the right to that yardage?

And yet none of you see this as illogical?

Signed,
Spock, aka The Lone Ranger