RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: golfingref on September 13, 2014, 09:57:55 PM
-
End of first half, defense flagged for IS as clock was running with 4 seconds left. Offense kicks successful FG but whistles can be heard due to defense with too many on field. Dead ball foul. Since clock would expire during down, would it not be better to let it be live ball and let offense have option of result of play? Call cost offense three points.
-
Why would the philosophy be any different with 4 seconds on the clock than it would be, say, with 9:12 on the clock?
-
12 in formation = dead ball foul
12th running off = live ball foul
-
Never saw a replay to know if it was 12 in formation or not. Rulesman, I was asking for what the philosophy was.
-
The more interesting question to me was what happened next. On the next FG attempt, ball was blocked, and TAM picked the ball up at the 10 (20 yards beyond the LOS) -- and returned the ball for an apparent touchdown. During the return, the H had a UNS against the TAM sideline. They enforced from his flag -- apparently the spot where they came on the field. It was unclear when the UNS occured. If it occurred at when the Kick was blocked -- and the ball was still rolling around at the 10 -- shouldn't the penalty be enforced from the end of the kick at the 10 where TAM picked up the ball? Since they actually enforced from the H's spot of this flag -- I can only assume the UNS occurred during the return and was behind the runner during the return.
Thoughts?
-
Did they try to shut it down is the question I would ask. If they didn't then they misapplied the rule by making it dead ball and taking the FG off the board.
On the return of the next FG attempt I don't know how they determined to enforce a foul against the bench as a live ball foul from any spot. That is unless he invoked 9-2-3 and just did whatever he thought was right. Based upon his announcement it sounded like a 9-2-5 foul. Administer as dead ball - 5 yds succeeding spot.
-
Did they try to shut it down is the question I would ask. If they didn't then they misapplied the rule by making it dead ball and taking the FG off the board.
On the return of the next FG attempt I don't know how they determined to enforce a foul against the bench as a live ball foul from any spot. That is unless he invoked 9-2-3 and just did whatever he thought was right. Based upon his announcement it sounded like a 9-2-5 foul. Administer as dead ball - 5 yds succeeding spot.
http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/88547/wild-sequence-for-aggies-owls
If it happened as R announce, the H ran into non-players who came onto the field and interfered with his duties. That is almost word for word from 9-2-3 and he was well within his rights to assess the flag at the spot of the interference, IMHO.
-
Why would there have been an untimed down?
The penalty was against Team B.
-
Why would there have been an untimed down?
The penalty was against Team B.
Why would it matter which team the live ball foul is against?
-
Why would it matter which team the live ball foul is against?
The issue with the accepted penalty is that if the offended team declined the penalty -- then the result of the play was a TD. So, Rice wanted to accept the penalty. Because you cannot end a quarter, half or game on an accepted penalty, they had to enforce the penalty and run an untimed down.
-
I'm thinking out loud but to dallas lj reply, but the flag came during the FG try, can't pick a point and let the penalty be enforced from there. Since there was a flag you either replay the whole down or since the flag came during the return, you don't let TD stand and bench foul in the process. Happened once years ago and can't remember the process but was told from higher ups we got it right. Has this changed in the later rule books?
-
I LOL at the look on R's face right before he announces the foul. You can just tell he's thinking "boy, theyre sure gonna LOOOOVE this one."
-
I was at the game and also have it recorded, so I have looked at the plays several times. The sequence of plays at the end of the first half were different to say the least.
Rice has no time outs and on third down the QB is sacked with about 15 seconds left in the half. They rush the FG team out and with 4 seconds left get an apparent score. The R had the U hold up the offense while the defense substituted, (seems AR 3-5-2-VII should apply here?) The down appears over but the SJ(?) has a flag for illegal sub which is announced (now listen!) as a dead ball foul. I cannot see more than 11 players in the defensive formation, even so I think the philosophy is not to put the offense at a dis-advantage by calling this a dead ball foul.
On the re-kick that was blocked. Right after the block there was a "group" of subs/coaches who came about half way out to the bottom of the numbers (they were flagged by HL) then immediately retreated when the kick was picked up. The HL then heads up the sideline without anyone in the white or on the field. After the TD a live ball unsportsmanlike "contact" foul was announced and an untimed down was run.
Strange sequence of plays no doubt. There is probably a lot there that we can all learn from.
-
I was at the game and also have it recorded, so I have looked at the plays several times. The sequence of plays at the end of the first half were different to say the least.
Rice has no time outs and on third down the QB is sacked with about 15 seconds left in the half. They rush the FG team out and with 4 seconds left get an apparent score. The R had the U hold up the offense while the defense substituted, (seems AR 3-5-2-VII should apply here?) The down appears over but the SJ(?) has a flag for illegal sub which is announced (now listen!) as a dead ball foul. I cannot see more than 11 players in the defensive formation, even so I think the philosophy is not to put the offense at a dis-advantage by calling this a dead ball foul.
On the re-kick that was blocked. Right after the block there was a "group" of subs/coaches who came about half way out to the bottom of the numbers (they were flagged by HL) then immediately retreated when the kick was picked up. The HL then heads up the sideline without anyone in the white or on the field. After the TD a live ball unsportsmanlike "contact" foul was announced and an untimed down was run.
Strange sequence of plays no doubt. There is probably a lot there that we can all learn from.
So, I was unsure of when the UNS was called on the bench. Since it was after the kick, but before the recovery by TAM, shouldn't the enforcement spot have been the end of the kick -- where TAM picked it up at the 10 yard line. I believe they enforced the UNS from where the coaches came onto the field.
-
The enforcement spot should have been the succeeding spot. Game Administration Interference is administered as a dead ball foul. I know TXSkyBolt mentioned this falling under 9-2-3, but I can't imagine support for this being called an Unfair Act. Unless something huge happened that hasn't been covered yet, I think they missed this one.
-
The enforcement spot should have been the succeeding spot. Game Administration Interference is administered as a dead ball foul. I know TXSkyBolt mentioned this falling under 9-2-3, but I can't imagine support for this being called an Unfair Act. Unless something huge happened that hasn't been covered yet, I think they missed this one.
I've got to agree. I had the week off so I was at this game. Watching it live I was convinced they had blown the enforcement on both calls.
The announcements were not good in both instances. On the second one Wagers announced; "By rule, the 15 yard penalty is enforced from where the flag is". I hope we can all agree that there is no rule reference for a non-player foul that calls specifically for spot foul enforcement.
-
That is the beauty of using that foul. It carries any penalty the R deems equitable. So you can never be wrong!!! Don't care about spots, yardage, losses of down, etc. Do what feels right
-
The enforcement spot should have been the succeeding spot.
Meaning the TD should count?
-
That would have been 1 option but for something like this taking the TD off is more than justified
-
You really think this goes beyond game administration interference and counts as an unfair act? Because that's what you would have to say to take the TD off the board.
-
You betcha ! Especially with the emphasis put on it this year.
-
I didn't see any unfair act when I watched it and by Birddog's description no one ever interfered with the H. Just seems like a normal sideline foul that is a live-ball administered as a dead-ball. Points count and the foul is enforced at the 2nd half KO.
What if this was the end of the 1st quarter? Would you have done the same thing?
-
Didn't the R announce " contact"?
-
Now that I can't answer. Either way though, I wouldn't deem that as unfair.
-
If they interfere with us doing our job, especially with contact, that is not a "simple sideline foul."
-
Didn't the R announce " contact"?
Yes he said contact, but in the context of the game and what happened on the previous play, he was pretty flustered. He may of intentionally said contact but my feeling is he just messed up, but could be wrong.
Using 9-2-3 in this case doesn't seem to fit. I can see using it in a situation like the Alamo Bowl with Michigan and the umpteen backward passes where chaos erupted, but this wasn't anything like that.
-
Here is both plays
https://vimeo.com/106230776 (https://vimeo.com/106230776)
-
:01 of the 2nd quarter in the video section:
http://espn.go.com/ncf/video?gameId=400548023
He clearly says "During the play, we have unsportsmanlike contact on the Texas A&M Bench....."
Reading both 9-2-3 and 9-2-5, 9-2-5 definitely fits much better there. He announced they were on the field, but other contact like that has fallen under 9-2-5 before. But, either one gives them one the ability to deal with interfering with game admin.
9-2-3 is the only thing that lets them enforce it from where ever they want, but we are guessing. For all we know they could have messed up the enforcement. I personally doubt they did, but you never know.
I would love to hear an explanation from someone in the know :)
-
Here is both plays
https://vimeo.com/106230776 (https://vimeo.com/106230776)
At :34, :35, :36, :37, :39 I am only counting 11. I dont see the 12th in the LOS area. :39 and :40 give you the end zone view and I am still only counting 11. The view is far, so certainly folks standing close to one another would be hard to see... but it seems like, from these frames, the first one shouldnt have been taken off.
-
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember an edict passed down a few years ago after one of these incidents that it was correct to enforce this as a live ball UNS foul via the unfair act rule.
Can somebody share documentation or an interpretation saying that we should not call the illegal substitution as a dead ball foul in this situation? It makes sense but I don't recall ever seeing that. It's a little tough to keep up with all of the different interpretations issued over the years.
-
I had not seen the video until I saw it at the post above. #1 - Why is the crew worried about giving B a chance to match up? There is an AR right on this point that says it is up to B to react without our assistance. # 2 - Looks like only the S flagged the "12 on defense" (which there was not). But if he 'saw" 12 in the formation he was right to shut it down as a dead ball foul.
This video does not shed much light on the UNS foul since they never show a replay and on the live action, the flag is already down before that part of the field comes into view so we do not know what happened. He did not say "unsportsmanlike contact" for no reason at all. There was likely contact and he was thinking about what had been reported so likely inadvertently shortened his announcement from "Unsportsmanlike conduct for contacting and official" to "unsportsmanlike contact".
-
A couple of other observations. The R holds the snap up for offense substitution. I believe RR has indicated that this is not a case where the defense has a chance to match up (late in a half, FG obvious).
Secondly, there are only 11 defensive players on the field when the whistle for ILS is sounded so that is an incorrect call.
-
I had not seen the video until I saw it at the post above. #1 - Why is the crew worried about giving B a chance to match up? There is an AR right on this point that says it is up to B to react without our assistance. # 2 - Looks like only the S flagged the "12 on defense" (which there was not). But if he 'saw" 12 in the formation he was right to shut it down as a dead ball foul.
This video does not shed much light on the UNS foul since they never show a replay and on the live action, the flag is already down before that part of the field comes into view so we do not know what happened. He did not say "unsportsmanlike contact" for no reason at all. There was likely contact and he was thinking about what had been reported so likely inadvertently shortened his announcement from "Unsportsmanlike conduct for contacting and official" to "unsportsmanlike contact".
He also announces that "by rule" the penalty is enforced from the spot where the flag is and we know that isn't the case. I wouldn't hang my hat on his announcement to conclude that there was any actual contact. I also believe the H thought the score would count and either the R or S determined differently. Either way confusion reigned.
I have seen officials contacted and even taken down many times and have never seen 9-2-3 applied as live ball unless the non-player actions also affected the players on the field.
-
AR 3-5-2 VIII and IX.
RULING for VIII - Team B should reasonably expect that Team A will attempt a field goal in this situation and should have its field-goal defense unit ready. The umpire will not stand over the ball, as there should be no issue of the defense being uncertain about the next play.
-
To say nothing of the 3 guys A&M had lined up over the guard, that after blasting him, allowed their teammate to block the kick......
-
From the 2014 Mechanics Manual:
Mechanics Points of Emphasis
2.1 Coaches’ Sideline Management and Control
Since 2011, keeping the working area (six-foot white border) clear of coaches and players while the ball is in play has been a Point of Emphasis. Although some teams have made some progress, that area continues to be a Point of Emphasis for 2014. Officials will be instructed to aggressively enforce the rule, especially during live-ball action.
Coaches will be allowed to only step to the sideline to call offensive and defensive signals after all action has ceased. That working space (six-foot white border) is intended to allow officials to adequately perform their duties; to protect the safety of officials, players and coaches; and to allow teams to demonstrate good sportsmanship within the team area.
There is no place for the excessive demonstrations that are occurring after plays by coaches and/or players coming onto the field of play, and there is no reason anyone should be on the field even during dead-ball action unless allowed by rule, such as to attend to an injured player.
......
The NCAA Football Rules Committee has instructed officials to be more diligent in their observations of those actions and they are instructed to flag violations of the rule when it occurs in an area they can observe.
Officials have also been instructed to aggressively enforce Rule 9-2-5 dealing with sideline and coaching box violations. Coaches are expected to set an appropriate, professional example for their players, fans and the many others who watch the game and to intervene when they see members of their team exhibit behavior that is not acceptable under the Sportsmanship guidelines of the Football Code.
-
To say nothing of the 3 guys A&M had lined up over the guard, that after blasting him, allowed their teammate to block the kick......
If they had all three blasted the guard you would be correct. One blew up the tackle.
-
A couple of thoughts to consider... it was mentioned that prior to the field goal attempt Team A substituted and the R/U held Team A because of the substitution. Per Mechanics Manual, page 53: "These procedures, which are intended to prevent the defense from being unable to match up during normal scrimmage situations, should not be used in the case of a substitution for a last-second field goal.... The defense should be prepared to respond appropriately. In no case should the U (or CJ) be standing over the ball to prevent the snap as the clock runs out."
Philosophy on whether this should be a live ball or dead ball foul for Team B substitution on potentially the last play of the half... if it's that close, let it go live and if the field goal is good, decline the penalty. Field goal is no good, 5 yard penalty and probably an un-timed down. Give the offended team the best of both options. "You just got the count of 12 after the snap" is your response. Last year a similar play happened and took a field goal off the board and after the ILS penalty from 5 yards closer, Team A missed the kick. Team B gains a huge advantage if this is called a dead ball foul. If it's early in the pre-snap and "B" has 12 in position that's one thing to call it a dead ball foul, but if you haven't called it until the snap or just after... go live ball ILS on a last second field goal attempt.
Last item... looks like Team B only has 11 players on the field... 12th man ran off as the SJ came in to double Umpire. Whistle, flag appears to come after the snap. Should have been a live ball foul... correction, should have been a no-call unless you can show 12 on the field.
Substitution mechanics, counting players, announcements... all things in our control. Don't give things away you can control. Next time you pre-game it might be smart to discuss these and other things. This isn't criticism, it's a teachable moment.
-
I hadn't see. The clip. I couldn't help but laugh when the R is making his announcement on the illegal sub play. He starts off and when the fans start booing he sais no listen. I'm still laughing.
-
As the R, whenever I have 1 official come to me with something that I know more than 1 should have had, I am asking them for some input. S comes in with Team B having 12 I am asking the F and B for some input (and maybe even the flank on team B sideline). H comes in with illegal formation, I want some input from L to confirm this. The only flag for the sub foul here was by the S. Does not look like any other official participated in that.
-
As the R, whenever I have 1 official come to me with something that I know more than 1 should have had, I am asking them for some input. S comes in with Team B having 12 I am asking the F and B for some input (and maybe even the flank on team B sideline). H comes in with illegal formation, I want some input from L to confirm this. The only flag for the sub foul here was by the S. Does not look like any other official participated in that.
I don't disagree with that thought but what good does it do you in this case? S had killed it. If he hadn't killed it all this could have been fixed with the proper result. Once he killed the play no discussion can fix the damage. Bill's advice is on target here.
-
Not saying he should not have killed it. But once that error was made, no need to keep compounding it. There was no foul on B and that should have been determined and waved off
Found this student video which shows what was happening during the return Based on what I think I am seeing I would also question making this an Unfair Act foul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdWovNDSpl4#t=39
-
Would agree with you mike. Just a garden variety sideline interference, subsequent spot enforcement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So, in review...
They should have never blown the first FG attempt dead because 1) that close to the snap just count it as a live ball foul since we have that option and (2) there actually wasnt 12 on defense.
They then compounded that by enforcing a sideline interference incorrectly (or at least a huge stretch).
But, maybe it was just a makeup call for taking the 3 points off the board for Rice... (I guess what I am trying to do is give the crew the benefit of the doubt that maybe they knew they messed up with the first good FG and not compound it by giving A&M a TD, so they used what they could... which was making the sideline interference a live ball foul).
-
But, maybe it was just a makeup call for taking the 3 points off the board for Rice... (I guess what I am trying to do is give the crew the benefit of the doubt that maybe they knew they messed up with the first good FG and not compound it by giving A&M a TD, so they used what they could... which was making the sideline interference a live ball foul).
That's actually the worst thing an official can do, so you're not giving the benefit there. Intentionally making a bad call is cheating, and an official should never cheat.
-
First thing, Rogers needs to make all defensive ILS fouls live ball. Eliminates all confusion / judgment.
Second, on the sideline interference, this is treated as a dead ball foul. Should be enforced on 2nd half kickoff. Remember, treating UNS as a live ball common foul only applies to PLAYERS. Here, non-players committed the UNS.
Does everybody remember USC / Utah the first year that rule came out? USC blocks game winning field goal and team rushes the field as they return it for a TD. Crew throws a UNS and takes the TD off the board. The conference then changes the score about 2 hrs later. For the gamblers, this meant that USC now covered the spread. Vegas was a mess!
-
Agree with making the ILS a live ball foul.
But on the sideline deal, I think that would have been enforced on the try. I have to look for it but I think we have something from a few years ago where this came up and it does not qualify for the choice by offended team of try or KO. Has to go to the try. And why are you calling it UNS if it was the first violation?
-
Didn't ILS just got changed to dead ball foul so the defense won't have the advantage of having 12 on the field, ahead at the end of the game, and burn the clock with the offensive play?
-
I finally looked at this tread and had a few thoughts. My first was that maybe the ILS was for a Sub coming on the field and off again - but the time on the video fore the whistle seems too long for that.
Then I was thinking the penalty on the blocked kick could have been leaping for the guy who blocked it - looked like he then landed on the back of a teammate - but that would have been a real tragic mistake to have the announcement and enforcement that came, so probably not what happened.
My impression of the (hard to see) student video that was posted was that the LM was drifting onto the the field and someone ran through his shoulder going to celebrate.
Not that it has anything to do with the conversation, but does anyone have an explanation as to why (in the vimeo video) right at the TD, an obvious player (#70) can be seen at the EZ sideline (time 3:46)?
-
hEaDbAnGLet's have a moratorium on getting on threads and dog piling a crew before we've even seen the play, please. Yes they made some mistakes but let's learn from them and be better officials after seeing this. As I read the thread I saw a bunch of wrong information, assumptions and incorrect rulings that were given without even first seeing all of the play. Personally, I want to see us get them all right but let's get all the info before we commence with the nut kicking. pi1eOn