Author Topic: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play  (Read 43143 times)

Offline ALRef

  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #75 on: November 01, 2011, 10:44:29 AM »
I didn't say it wasn't illogical. I just said the rule doesn't allow for it. The operative word is "yet".

Grant - AR

  • Guest
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #76 on: November 01, 2011, 10:49:51 AM »
In thinking back on this play, I don't think I've ever seen this before.  I'm sure it has happened, but I don't remember seeing it.  Most of the time, either the receiver gives a fair catch signal or someone falls on the ball as soon as it hits the ground (the ball is dead when possessed or there is no return).  It seems "right" to tack the 15 yards onto the end of the return, but the rules don't currently allow for that.  I think ALRef hit the nail on the head with his last sentence of the above post.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8457
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #77 on: November 01, 2011, 10:50:02 AM »
I keep seeing this "the rules don't allow it" stuff but I have yet to see anyone argue that the rules PROHIBIT this enforcement.  Just because it is not specifically spelled out does not mean it cannot be done under the rules.  And perhaps more importantly for those of you who have to deal with supervisors who can remove you from the field for anything they please....I have yet to see one person argue their supervisor would not support them if they did enforce the tack on.

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1856
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #78 on: November 01, 2011, 11:13:05 AM »
I think we all agree that the A player violated 9-1-4.  He has also violated 6-4-1.  There is nothing in the book, however, that specifies that a violation for 6-4-1 supersedes a violation of 9-1-4. I'm not sure how we can say that Team B must only be allowed to decide on accepting the penalty for KCI.

Mike, you've got a small posse building.  :)

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #79 on: November 01, 2011, 11:18:48 AM »
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.

The word used was "deliberate", and it can CLEARLY be heard on the clip starting at 2:07.  But that is a minor issue.  The much bigger issue is that the announced foul was a "personal foul", not KCI, and the enforcement spot for a personal foul is from the end of the run.

And the AR uses both "flagrant personal foul" (which by definition can be enforced from the end of the run) and "intereference with the opportunity to catch a kick" (which can only be marked from the spot).

I agree, the AR SEEMS to make the interference call a special type of "personal foul", and specifies the location for enforcement.  But the rule book doesn't make KCI any type of personal foul, it's just interference.

 

Offline GoodScout

  • *
  • Posts: 413
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-9
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #80 on: November 01, 2011, 11:29:59 AM »
Chalk me down as one who would have had both KCI and a USC for the taunting, with a disqualification.

Offline Diablo

  • *
  • Posts: 1774
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-20
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #81 on: November 01, 2011, 12:31:58 PM »
I keep seeing this "the rules don't allow it" stuff but I have yet to see anyone argue that the rules PROHIBIT this enforcement.   

If you accept the fact that Wade's contact with the receiver constituted an impediment to the receiver's ability to catch the punt, there are 2 separate rules which PROHIBIT tack-on of penalty enforcement to the end the Team B's runback.  Those rules are 6-3-13 and 10-2-4. 

Offline FLBJ

  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #82 on: November 01, 2011, 12:33:33 PM »
My question is more for Zebra99 but naturally others should jump in.....now that we have CFO videos (what used to be called 'accountability videos'), RR has occasionally commented on calls made during a game (e.g. the recent one with the LSU punter and the unsportsmanlike act).

Does anyone consider these comments 'AR's' or any other sort of interpretation? My concern is that this will be on one of the videos but not actually in print.

Offline zebra99

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #83 on: November 01, 2011, 12:34:24 PM »
I keep seeing this "the rules don't allow it" stuff but I have yet to see anyone argue that the rules PROHIBIT this enforcement.  Just because it is not specifically spelled out does not mean it cannot be done under the rules.  And perhaps more importantly for those of you who have to deal with supervisors who can remove you from the field for anything they please....I have yet to see one person argue their supervisor would not support them if they did enforce the tack on.

perhaps this play has not been brought to the attention of all supervisors yet, or perhaps some are waiting for a response.  But to suggest that because you haven't heard of any supervisors who would not support your tack on position, they must support it, is quite a stretch!

Offline zebra99

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #84 on: November 01, 2011, 12:38:46 PM »
My question is more for Zebra99 but naturally others should jump in.....now that we have CFO videos (what used to be called 'accountability videos'), RR has occasionally commented on calls made during a game (e.g. the recent one with the LSU punter and the unsportsmanlike act).

Does anyone consider these comments 'AR's' or any other sort of interpretation? My concern is that this will be on one of the videos but not actually in print.

excellent point!  Yes, what RR says on video is the "law of the land" and, hopefully, it will get reduced to writing somehow, sometime.  That's not always happened.

And what has been noted by others - we have the rules and the ARs, but also the bulletin plays and other written interpretations published by RR.  Unfortunately, these don't get into the rules or ARs as they should.  I feel sorry for high school officials moving up as there's no way they would be aware of the "collateral" instructions.  And, you should see my expanded rule book!  3-ring binder stuffed with notes, add ons, copies of bulletins, handwritten notes in the margins, etc. etc.!

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #85 on: November 01, 2011, 12:40:23 PM »
perhaps this play has not been brought to the attention of all supervisors yet,

I would be shocked if every conference supervisor hasn't seen this video yet.

I'm sure many are waiting for a league response or one from RR, but how could they not be aware of it?  This isn't one that has just beeen discussed on officiating boards, this one has been VERY public.

Offline zebra99

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #86 on: November 01, 2011, 12:45:52 PM »
I would be shocked if every conference supervisor hasn't seen this video yet.

I'm sure many are waiting for a league response or one from RR, but how could they not be aware of it?  This isn't one that has just beeen discussed on officiating boards, this one has been VERY public.

I agree that most have probably seen it - but you're right on that many are waiting for RR's response - so my post was only to suggest that the absence of agreement/disagreement with the "tack on" folks should not taken to the bank.  Silence does not equate to taking a position.

Offline mccormicw

  • *
  • Posts: 258
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-3
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #87 on: November 01, 2011, 12:58:48 PM »
quote author=Diablo link=topic=8658.msg82889#msg82889 date=1320168718]
If you accept the fact that Wade's contact with the receiver constituted an impediment to the receiver's ability to catch the punt, there are 2 separate rules which PROHIBIT tack-on of penalty enforcement to the end the Team B's runback.  Those rules are 6-3-13 and 10-2-4.
[/quote]

Both 6-3-13 and 10-2-4 only prohibit tacking on KCI but specifically allow enforcing all other fouls by the kicking team (PFs are a subset of all other fouls by the kicking team).

Even though I believe a personal foul should either be called instead of KCI or in addition to KCI, if the foul is somehow flagrant only because it was contact on a player in position to catch a scrimmage kick, then I can support the interpretation that KCI is the correct call.

However, if the kicking team player leads with the helmet pior to or after the receiver catches the ball (not saying that was the case in the Arkansas game), I have a PF unless the situation dictates a greater punishment for KCI.  I am not going to punish the return team because the hit was early (even if an AR allows me to only enforce the KCI).

Is there an icon that shows my comments are all over the place and dont flow well? : :!#

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #88 on: November 01, 2011, 01:33:05 PM »

I just received the SEC conference office weekly press release and there is nothing in there on a suspension.

The ironic part of all of this is that Wade is the punt returner for Arkansas.  Wonder how he would feel if he were on the receiving end of this one?

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8457
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #89 on: November 01, 2011, 02:13:56 PM »
If you accept the fact that Wade's contact with the receiver constituted an impediment to the receiver's ability to catch the punt, there are 2 separate rules which PROHIBIT tack-on of penalty enforcement to the end the Team B's runback.  Those rules are 6-3-13 and 10-2-4.

I did not make it clear...I am not saying the tack on is permitted under the KCI rule.  I am asking what rule says this cannot be called a targeting PF which DOES permit the tackl on enforcement?

Offline arthurhawgerelli

  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #90 on: November 01, 2011, 02:21:59 PM »
I respect a lot of folks on here, and I do find it refreshing that there is debate as to what actually happened, or at least what should have happened.

I find it odd that it is universally approved of on this board that Wade should have been ejected.  I see an overzealous hit, by ducking his head at the last minute.  I've seen much worse hits, and no flag even thrown.  How does this qualify as an ejection foul?

Here is one example of worse, yet not even a flag:



Not only one blow with the crown of the helmet, but two, and one after the whistle (yes there is no audio).

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 1859
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-45
Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #91 on: November 01, 2011, 03:06:08 PM »
What you posted is just a still photo on my 'puter.

Grant - AR

  • Guest
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #92 on: November 01, 2011, 03:15:42 PM »
What you posted is just a still photo on my 'puter.

That's odd.  I see an animated gif.  Try going to the following link and see what you get:

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/840952/LateHit_medium.gif

Grant - AR

  • Guest
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #93 on: November 01, 2011, 03:27:42 PM »
I just received the SEC conference office weekly press release and there is nothing in there on a suspension.

The ironic part of all of this is that Wade is the punt returner for Arkansas.  Wonder how he would feel if he were on the receiving end of this one?

According to the link below, he will be suspended for this week's game.

http://www.katv.com/story/15927241/wade-suspended-for-south-carolina-game

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8457
  • FAN REACTION: +223/-240
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #94 on: November 01, 2011, 03:27:56 PM »
I respect a lot of folks on here, and I do find it refreshing that there is debate as to what actually happened, or at least what should have happened.

I find it odd that it is universally approved of on this board that Wade should have been ejected.  I see an overzealous hit, by ducking his head at the last minute.  I've seen much worse hits, and no flag even thrown.  How does this qualify as an ejection foul?
Not only one blow with the crown of the helmet, but two, and one after the whistle (yes there is no audio).

Art
Not sure what level of ball you are training and officiating in but I assure you that NCAA training and officiating has included great attention in recent years on acts just like this and "pressuring" officials to eject more for them.  The thing you posted is clearly an ejectionable offense.  But just because some official(s) erred but not booting that player does not mean other should not be booted for equally as bad offenses or even for less bad offenses.   
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 03:37:33 PM by TXMike »

Offline busman

  • *
  • Posts: 1261
  • FAN REACTION: +49/-63
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #95 on: November 01, 2011, 03:46:06 PM »
I recall Keith Jackson's (the former NFL tight end, not the legendary commentator) commentary on that play and he stated, on the Arkansas network, he couldn't blame the defender for the late hit because no one was sure Johnson was down.  He didn't comment on the helmet blow, and I wasn't watching the game. (I know, but golf courses are  strickingly beautiful here in the Natural State this time of year.)

Offline arthurhawgerelli

  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #96 on: November 01, 2011, 04:09:07 PM »
Art
Not sure what level of ball you are training and officiating in but I assure you that NCAA training and officiating has included great attention in recent years on acts just like this and "pressuring" officials to eject more for them.  The thing you posted is clearly an ejectionable offense.  But just because some official(s) erred but not booting that player does not mean other should not be booted for equally as bad offenses or even for less bad offenses.
TXMike, let me first say that I stand corrected.  In my clip of the Ole Miss player and the Arkansas running back, Ole Miss was penalized.  I definitely see two hits with the crown of the helmet from the same player, and I also understand that ejecting a player is a tough call.  There is lots of gray area.  I'm just trying to figure out at what point did Wade (in the Vanderbilt game) draw the ejection?  He immediately jumped up, and as he went towards the sidelines, kind of stiff body "posed" (kind of like a baseball player does after hitting a homerun, assuring a bean ball next time), but he did not hover over the downed player.  Seems to me if Wade was ejected for tackling with the crown of his helmet, a player who does so before the play is over, and after, should have warranted an ejection. 

You guys have a tough job, I readily admit that.  Wander over to the Federation board and jump into one of those horse collar arguments. I stood in the end zone with a veteran official this past Friday night, and he was screaming at the on field crew for missing what he interpreted to be a textbook horse collar.

Offline arthurhawgerelli

  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #97 on: November 01, 2011, 04:11:23 PM »
I just received the SEC conference office weekly press release and there is nothing in there on a suspension.

The ironic part of all of this is that Wade is the punt returner for Arkansas.  Wonder how he would feel if he were on the receiving end of this one?

I'm sure he'll get that chance, if not this season, next season.

Offline GoodScout

  • *
  • Posts: 413
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-9
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #98 on: November 01, 2011, 05:40:06 PM »
I respect a lot of folks on here, and I do find it refreshing that there is debate as to what actually happened, or at least what should have happened.

I find it odd that it is universally approved of on this board that Wade should have been ejected.  I see an overzealous hit, by ducking his head at the last minute.  I've seen much worse hits, and no flag even thrown.  How does this qualify as an ejection foul?

Here is one example of worse, yet not even a flag:



Not only one blow with the crown of the helmet, but two, and one after the whistle (yes there is no audio).
I guess since OJ got off, we should never prosecute people for murder anymore.

Two flags: KPI and USC, both on Wade. Ejection.
Your gif: A pair of PF's for illegal use of helmet, one live-ball, one dead. With an ejection.

This really isn't that hard. You're just making it so.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 05:43:01 PM by GoodScout »

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: Arkansas Vandy Ejection play
« Reply #99 on: November 01, 2011, 06:14:48 PM »
TXMike, let me first say that I stand corrected.  In my clip of the Ole Miss player and the Arkansas running back, Ole Miss was penalized.  I definitely see two hits with the crown of the helmet from the same player, and I also understand that ejecting a player is a tough call.  There is lots of gray area.  I'm just trying to figure out at what point did Wade (in the Vanderbilt game) draw the ejection?  He immediately jumped up, and as he went towards the sidelines, kind of stiff body "posed" (kind of like a baseball player does after hitting a homerun, assuring a bean ball next time), but he did not hover over the downed player.

I think that this hit is so hard and so far outside what's legal, I'm sending the guy who throws it even if he's not targeted or used his head.  He's not trying to play football.