Punt at the GL (video)

[TXMike]

Interesting play to discuss in the context of the current philosophy on catch vs no catch when a player is going to the ground.  Does the same philosophy exist when the player doing the catching/recovering is a TeamA player trying to get possession of a kicked ball?

The B appears to be in great position but may have been slightly blocked by another Team A player.  There is some discussion between B and F but no way of telling from the video what it was.  Also not clear if the final call on field was touchback and replay confirmed or if final call was ball dead inside 1 and replay overturned to TB.

http://youtu.be/Uwt7W4Y9ppQ

[110]

Official was in the right place, and seemed to take his time making the call ... and it looked like the two were chatting back and forth ... all good signs, no?

[wlemonnier]

The BJ ruled the punt dead in the field of play... appears the FJ ruled otherwise and I believe the final ruling on the field was a touchback.  Referees... when conflicting calls occur, take this opportunity to give an explanation of the final ruling [replay or no replay games].

As far as the context/philosophy of possession... if this were a pass into the EZ and a Team A receiver did what this player did with the punt, would you have a catch for a TD or an incomplete pass?  The analogy is to have one definition of possession... whether it be a pass, kick or securing a loose ball.  Did this player going to the ground complete the process of possession?

There is a good argument for saying this player showed a "second act" of trying to place the ball on the ground in the field of play.  Not an easy call unless you are pre-grounded in your philosophies of what possession is or isn't.  So make the call... touchback or down inside the 1-yard line.  I bet this play could generate 30-minutes of great discussion.  Personally, I like the touchback call but am open to the argument for this being a second act/football move.

[TXMike]

To Mr L's point re being predisposed...I admit I am predisposed to think a guy trying to down a kick would do like this guy did.  On the other hand, a guy trying to score a TD would/should do all he can to hold on to the ball.  He definitely would not try to leave it in the field of play.  So knowing what the player is trying to do definitely affects the way I see the action.  That is why I see this as a ball dead inside the 1 (assuming there is no GL shot that shows taht when the ball was being held up in the air, it was actually breaking the plane).

[zebra99]

yes - there was a great discussion during the game on the chat line.  My issue is more with the IR reversal as I don't see indisputable video evidence either on the ball penetrating or the "second act" issue.  There was no direct GL view the "second act" is a judgment - granted revieweable in the catch/no-catch scenario - but it really should be indisputable otherwise we should go with the ROF.

[ABoselli]

Why there is no fixed camera shot down each goal line in D1 and NFL football still mystifies me.

I've heard the arguments about prohibitive cost and being at the mercy of the networks but in the meanwhile, I see those movable cameras strung over the field of play (which are probably more than $100), fixed goalpost cameras and conference payouts from the networks blow up. It would really assist in ruling on plays around the two most important lines on the field.

In this play, it is the critical piece of information that is missing for the RO. I'd think that if we've already sunk a fair amount of cash into the replay process already, why not enhance it to rule on the most important calls. In for a penny....

As far as possession and completing the act, if this were a receiver and if he didn't take it all the way to the ground during trying to complete a catch (bounced it off his own leg), I think we have to rule no catch, even though he had contolled it up to that point. We've philosophically painted ourselves into this corner already.

[DD]

The same rules apply for a catch as a recovery. The Team A player must maintain control while going to the ground. He lost possession just before his butt hit the ground.  Touchback. Replay in the NCAA differ from the NFL in that the NFL RO get the same training.  In the NCAA, it is dependent on each conference, on the supervisor and the amount of money they can spend on training the ROs. Conferences with NFL referees as supervisors have a better understanding of replay than conferences that have supervisors that never did replay.

[El Macman]

The only thing to criticize on this play is the idiot R that initially announced that the ruling on the field was a touchback. What the hell was he thinking? He knew the ruling was not a touchback. Even though he didn't think so at the time, he obviously got in too big of a hurry and got verbal dyslexia.
The debate about possession could rage eternally. No debate about the poor announcement.

[TXMike]

So the ruling on field was down inside the 1 and IR overturned?  They had evidence that good?   Must have seen more than we were allowed to see at home.

[Rulesman]

Why there is no fixed camera shot down each goal line in D1 and NFL football still mystifies me.

I've heard the arguments about prohibitive cost and being at the mercy of the networks but in the meanwhile, I see those movable cameras strung over the field of play (which are probably more than $100), fixed goalpost cameras and conference payouts from the networks blow up. It would really assist in ruling on plays around the two most important lines on the field.

In this play, it is the critical piece of information that is missing for the RO. I'd think that if we've already sunk a fair amount of cash into the replay process already, why not enhance it to rule on the most important calls. In for a penny....

The argument that "the NCAA is at the mercy of the networks" is horse manure. The NCAA can fix that IF they really want it fixed. This is their game and the networks make a ton of money from it. It's time for the NCAA to quit letting the tail wag the dog!

[Sonofanump]

Official was in the right place, and seemed to take his time making the call ... and it looked like the two were chatting back and forth ... all good signs, no?

I have always given the two hands the shoulders to indicate illegal touching bythe kicking team.  Anyone else do that? 

Just so I am clear on what I am thinking.  We do have illegal touching in the field of play, but possesion was made by A (thereby ending the play) after the ball had crossed the goalline, therefore the result of the play is a touchback and B will not take the illegal touching spot.

[mccormicw]

My best effort at determining the announcements:

"The ruling on the field was a touchback.  The ball was possessed in the field of play.  Previous play is under further review."

"After further review, the ball broke the plane of the goalline and is therefore a touchback."

If I got that right, there were a few problems with the announcement(s).

[Diablo]

Technically, A21 is attempting to recover the ball.  However, the criteria for recovering is the same as catching the ball - maintain firm control of the ball through the ground.  In my opinion, A21 never fulfills the criteria for recovery.  Yes, he has a grasp of ball while airborne.  But, the fact that he lost his grasp of the ball as his arse hits the ground says he did not have firm control of the ball.

If you buy into the idea that A21 never successfully completes the recovery, then the ball remains "loose" (from the punt) all the while A21 was grasping it.  Ditto when A32 unsuccessfully attempted to recovery the loose ball.  Then the action stopped ... due to the B's whistle. 

If the B blew his whistle because he had A21 with possession of the ball completely outside of the EZ, why didn't he mark the spot with his bean bag.  Or did I miss that on the video?

The play is playing out as an IW to me.

[TXMike]

There is no need for the bag if the spot of illegal touch is the immediately same spot the ball is dead.  That is what the B thought he had, a dead ball inside the 1. He signalled that.  Perhaps he was then taken off by the F but if the B only saw this first touching as an illeagl touch (no possession)m what can he do?  If he was all alone he could have bagged but that area was likely not his area for bagging so may have deferred to the B, who then chose to call it possession. 

[Diablo]

There is no need for the bag if the spot of illegal touch is the immediately same spot the ball is dead.  That is what the B thought he had, a dead ball inside the 1. He signalled that.  Perhaps he was then taken off by the F but if the B only saw this first touching as an illeagl touch (no possession)m what can he do?  If he was all alone he could have bagged but that area was likely not his area for bagging so may have deferred to the B, who then chose to call it possession.

Touching precedes possession.  Besides, when the punt is close to the goal line, you gots to get the bag in the ground.

[TXMike]

When a punt returner fair catches the ball, do you bag that spot?

The bag can help sell things at times, and it could have here if the judgment was the ball was touched after broke the plane of the goal line.  But the B saw the same thing I saw, a ball possessed and dead immediately.  There is no need for the bag there since you are gettiing that spot  with your foot, just like he did.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The play is playing out as an IW to me.

Can't be an IW since the ball bounces on the GL between A-21's legs prior to the whistle so it's dead by rule at that point.

[TXMike]

I believe the devil boy is saying the whistle was blown by the B before the ball got there as he was ruling ball dead in possession in the field of play while ball was beng held in the air (with the player doing the holding having his feet firmly planted on tierra firma!!)

[Diablo]

Can't be an IW since the ball bounces on the GL between A-21's legs prior to the whistle so it's dead by rule at that point.

Agree.
The whistle appears to sound when the ball is laying on the goalline, between A21's feet.

[NVFOA_Ump]

If we're going to apply the same possession and control rules to this as we do on a pass play, I'd have to go with the TB call and no possession in the field of play.

[TXMike]

Pretty close vote on the play on the poll on Rom Gilbert's site:  http://www.romgilbert.us/2011vidclip17.htm

[Diablo]

When a punt returner fair catches the ball, do you bag that spot?

Sometimes. 
It depends upon how far the catcher wonders away with the ball.  But most fair catches occur well away from the goalline.  There's no burning need to sell the call.  A bag on the ground is worth more than a foot down.

What's  your call on this, Hoss?
An airborne Team A pass receiver grasps a forward pass,
touches down with both feet off balance at the B-2,
immediately falls forward,
extends his arm such that the ball breaks the plane of the GL,
as he hits the ground, the ball drops from his hand.

[Rulesman]

An airborne Team A pass receiver grasps a forward pass,
touches down with both feet off balance at the B-2,
immediately falls forward,
extends his arm such that the ball breaks the plane of the GL,
as he hits the ground, the ball drops from his hand.

Based on where you placed a comma and what I put in bold, I've got one of these:

 

[texref]

Why there is no fixed camera shot down each goal line in D1 and NFL football still mystifies me.

I've heard the arguments about prohibitive cost and being at the mercy of the networks but in the meanwhile, I see those movable cameras strung over the field of play (which are probably more than $100), fixed goalpost cameras and conference payouts from the networks blow up. It would really assist in ruling on plays around the two most important lines on the field.

In this play, it is the critical piece of information that is missing for the RO. I'd think that if we've already sunk a fair amount of cash into the replay process already, why not enhance it to rule on the most important calls. In for a penny....

As far as possession and completing the act, if this were a receiver and if he didn't take it all the way to the ground during trying to complete a catch (bounced it off his own leg), I think we have to rule no catch, even though he had contolled it up to that point. We've philosophically painted ourselves into this corner already.

There was no Television fixed GL camera but there might be one in the stadium system. If so it would only be seen by the Replay guys in the booth. Most D1 stadiums have their own Replay camera system in place. There are usually 5 cameras at a minimum (2 end zone cameras, 2 goalline cameras and 1 High 50 camera). Those 5 cameras feed into the Replay system. When TV comes to town to do a game the TV feed is connected to the Replay system through the High 50 port. The Replay guys have access to everything TV shows and the remaining stadium system cameras.

So.......Replay may have had a shot (GL) that TV didn't have access to. Not sure but they might have.

[RedTD]

Based on where you placed a comma and what I put in bold, I've got one of these:

 

But, you did not bold "off balance" which means he may be judged as an airborne receiver "going to the ground" in which case