Go-Daddy Bowl game

[Atlanta Blue]

OK, so it should have been:

1.  Ball touched by B in field of play, clock should start
2.  Ball travels into EZ without an added force by B, so it's live, but in the EZ by force of the kick
3.  B is free to bring it out, or down it in the EZ for a touchback (which it was).

OR

1.  Ball wasn't touched by B in field of play
2.  Ball should have been blown dead when it touched in the EZ
3.  Clock never starts

What seems to have happened:

1.  Ball was touched by B in field of play, but no official signalled it so clock didn't start
2.  Ball was live in EZ, picked up by B and the clock starts
3.  B tackled for a touchback, so clock stopped

While the final result was correct (touchback), the mechanics (and the clock) seem to have been butchered on this one.

[Rulesman]

...don't go looking for stuff like this unless the action is unnecessary. And if you rule that it is, then by definition it's a personal foul. First line of Rule 9.

"A block in the back is contact against an opponent occurring when the force of the initial contact is from behind and above the waist." (2-3-4a).

Pretty plain and straight forward. The block in question meets the definition.

[TXMike]

It does fit the definition.  But not all blocks in the back are fouls. 

[Rulesman]

...But not all blocks in the back are fouls.

I agree. But I also feel the block in question does not fit into the spirit and intent of the exception. After he makes the block he winds up flat on his face. He has absolutely no shot at the ball carrier.

[Diablo]

I agree. But I also feel the block in question does not fit into the spirit and intent of the exception. After he makes the block he winds up flat on his face. He has absolutely no shot at the ball carrier.

Perhaps A23 had no shot of getting to ball carrier after blocking B20.  But prior to the block, B20 (blockee) stood directly between A23 and the ball carrier.  To get at the ball carrier, A23 had to dislodge B20.  The fact that A23 was unsuccessful has limited relevance.

Note, after A23 gets up, he immediately moves to continue his pursuit of the ball carrier.  If his intentions were nefarious, A23 would likely had forsaken the ball carrier to laud over B20.

[mccormicw]

If his intentions were nefarious, A23 would likely had forsaken the ball carrier to laud over B20.

I like the entire post but love the "would likely have forsaken the ball carrier to laud over B20" part.

[El Macman]

Perhaps A23 had no shot of getting to ball carrier after blocking B20.  But prior to the block, B20 (blockee) stood directly between A23 and the ball carrier.  To get at the ball carrier, A23 had to dislodge B20.  The fact that A23 was unsuccessful has limited relevance.

Note, after A23 gets up, he immediately moves to continue his pursuit of the ball carrier.  If his intentions were nefarious, A23 would likely had forsaken the ball carrier to laud over B20.

Some folks are saying, "Whut da hail didee say?" But I understood. 

[Rulesman]

Note, after A23 gets up, he immediately moves to continue his pursuit of the ball carrier.

You call that "pursuit?"

[James]

I am way underpaid!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SivqP2SHxM

I think we can all agree to that - and possibly offer you a 25% raise for the Bowl season for next year.

[Diablo]

I think we can all agree to that - and possibly offer you a 25% raise for the Bowl season for next year.

TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT ! 

I don't know what he is currently getting, but we're in a recession and this ain't Wall St. 

[TXMike]

That 25% would put me in a different tax bracket, so thanks, but no thanks

[mccormicw]

Isnt 25% of zero still zero?

[El Macman]

Isnt 25% of zero still zero?

Explain that to Congress and the current administration, please.

[James]

mccormicw nailed my idea.