KCI ? (video)

[TXMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOsBD9dDp5I

[CenTexZebra]

Not even close! I guess they reenacted the halo rule in this game?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Another case from this weekend's games where the calling official is straight lined and has no good way to determine what is happening behind the player in front of him so he apparently guesses and makes the call anyway.  Although KCI is always a judgment call, and sometimes a tough one, I would agree that this one is not really close and should not have been flagged.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Osric Pureheart]

What, A48 isn't distracting the returner at all from being right up in his grill?

[NVFOA_Ump]

IMO the defining view of this is around 45 seconds into the clip.  There is clearly no contact, the receiver does not in any way have to avoid the defender, and the defender does not attempt to block the receiver's line of sight to the ball.  Unless we're going to revisit the halo rule, in my judgment, this is not a foul.

[mbyron]

Sounds like a textbook application of AR 6-4-1-VI:

On a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, A89 stands in or runs through an area close to B23 who is in position to catch the ball. A89 is deemed to have impeded B23. RULING: Interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the foul, which is where A89 was located when he committed the foul.

[Diablo]

Just before the ball arrives, B48, who is standing very close to the receiver, jerks his head and shoulders up & back (note at 41 & 48 sec and 1:27 during the video).  Perhaps the B, whose view of B48 was momentarily eclipsed by the punt receiver at those times, saw that and took it as contact between the receiver and defender.

I don't know Big 12's mechanics, but it appears that the B & S were fairly far behind the receiver.  As the ball is coming down at ~B-30, the S is at the B-12.  With his wider angle, if he were closer, he might of had a better look.   

Geez, those two, huge play clocks at each end of the field are impressive.

[El Macman]

Tougher to call in real time than in replay - clear case of KCI. Watch the receiver. As he is tracking the ball, due to the rusher's presence, the receiver takes an exrtra step to his left to avoid him, causing him to overshoot the trajectory of the ball, so he ends up have to reach back to his right to try to catch the ball. Had the rusher not been there, the receiver could have approached the ball dead-on, making the catch more straightforward.
The kicking team player caused the receiver to alter his path to the ball. KCI - correct and good call.

[zebra99]

Tougher to call in real time than in replay - clear case of KCI. Watch the receiver. As he is tracking the ball, due to the rusher's presence, the receiver takes an exrtra step to his left to avoid him, causing him to overshoot the trajectory of the ball, so he ends up have to reach back to his right to try to catch the ball. Had the rusher not been there, the receiver could have approached the ball dead-on, making the catch more straightforward.
The kicking team player caused the receiver to alter his path to the ball. KCI - correct and good call.

totally agree with El Mac.  The question on all of these type plays is NOT whether it's a foul based on slo-mo, frame by frame replays, but whether it's a foul based on real time action.  Pure judgment by the on field official in real time.

On KCI, the kickers must give the receiver latitude and when that get that close, their hand is in the proverbial cookie jar, can't complain if they get caught.