RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: yarnnelg on October 24, 2020, 04:49:19 PM
-
Kickoff, ball touched by R at the 10, ball travels through to the endzone. No possession, no detectable altering the flight. Touchback?
-
The impetus on the ball that put it beyond B’s goal line where the ball became dead (behind the goal line) is with the kick from Team A. That’s a touchback. The fact that the ball was touched (muffed) by Team B does not change the impetus. It does mean the game clock should be started (upon signal by the covering officials).
-
That's what I thought. Missed that on a test once. Look at the Ole Miss/Auburn game. Ole Miss burning down Officials houses right now. About 3 minutes left in the forth quarter.
-
Not sure it was technically reviewable though. There's no immediate recovery language for a muffed ball becoming dead in the endzone. The spirit of the rule suggests the same standard should apply but the officials killed it just before Ole Miss would have scored.
-
Kickoff, ball touched by R at the 10, ball travels through to the endzone. No possession, no detectable altering the flight. Touchback?
Just saw this play after reading this thread earlier. The ball did not travel through the endzone. It became dead due to signal in the endzone. If it was touched by the return team, the ball is still live after touching the ground in the endzone. I believe that a muff provides the immediate recovery after whistle for replay.
-
Haven’t seen the play but from what was described they got it right, I think. The ball becomes dead as soon as it’s in the end zone as long as the kicking team is the one who last placed the force on the ball.
8-6-1-b
b. A kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team’s goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there (Exception: Rule 8-4-2-b) (A.R. 6-3-4-III).
8-7-2-a
Initial Impetus
ARTICLE 2. a. The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball’s progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team (A.R. 6-3-4-III; A.R. 8-5-1-II, VI and VIII; and A.R. 8-7-2-I-IV).
-
Haven’t seen the play but from what was described they got it right, I think. The ball becomes dead as soon as it’s in the end zone as long as the kicking team is the one who last placed the force on the ball.
Do you think rule 6-1-7-a applies?
"When a free kick untouched by Team B touches the ground on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B."
-
Y’all help a brother out. I’m not a college rule student so I have a couple of questions.
#1. What exactly is the rule concerning a grounded free kick touched by R and recovered by K in the end zone?
#2. Is the play reviewable?
-
Referee magazine covered this....check out play 2.
Impetus would be responsible the ball being there if B recovered making it a Touchback, but 6-1-7a says explicitly its only dead upon touching the EZ when untouched by B (4-1-3-c)
https://www.referee.com/free-but-not-easy/
-
That's what I thought. Missed that on a test once. Look at the Ole Miss/Auburn game. Ole Miss burning down Officials houses right now. About 3 minutes left in the forth quarter.
So then Ole Miss has a right to be upset?
-
Another question. Is this something basic enough that every college official should know? On the high school side I think knowing a kick is dead as soon as it crosses the goal line regardless of being touched or not and becomes a touchback. Is the college rule not that clear?
-
Another question. Is this something basic enough that every college official should know? On the high school side I think knowing a kick is dead as soon as it crosses the goal line regardless of being touched or not and becomes a touchback. Is the college rule not that clear?
The rule is clear. Every official knows it.
What is not clear is whether the B receiver touched the ball. It's that close. Watching blown up replays on the internet, I think that the ball grazed his pinky. I mean, it's that close. The path of the ball isn't altered appreciably. It's an extremely difficult call for the onfield officials at game speed.
-
What is not clear is whether the B receiver touched the ball. It's that close. Watching blown up replays on the internet, I think that the ball grazed his pinky. I mean, it's that close. The path of the ball isn't altered appreciably. It's an extremely difficult call for the onfield officials at game speed.
Now I'm intrigued. Based on the OP I assumed that the the ball went out of bounds beyond the team B end line, so it shouldn't matter if a team B player touched it or not - it is a touchback. Was the ruling on the field something else, or did the ball not go OOB in the EZ?
Edit: OK, found the play. So it did not go OOB but team A apparently recovered in the team B EZ. Then yes, it comes down to if a team B player touched it or not, and if nobody saw any touching. it is a TB. As to if it is reviewable, I think it is, both as it concerns a potential score and touching of a kick.
-
"ball travels through to the endzone"
I misspoke although the intent was correct. The ball traveled threw the field of play into the end zone ....
Regardless, the rule was applied correctly. when it entered the end zone the play was over. It doesn't matter whether or not there was an unseen touch or not ....the flight of the ball into the end zone was the original force of the kick.
I remembered this from a test back in the day that the Florida test was 100 questions. I went to great pains to write this answer down and searched for it on my own. I was lazy and did not pull my test file to find the answer. That was a test score of 99 and the wrong question was one I beat myself over on.....
Go back and re-read the Elvis post ...."TOUCHING DOES NOT MATTER" The moment it crosses the goal line ...touchback.
-
"ball travels through to the endzone"
I misspoke although the intent was correct. The ball traveled threw the field of play into the end zone ....
Regardless, the rule was applied correctly. when it entered the end zone the play was over. It doesn't matter whether or not there was an unseen touch or not ....the flight of the ball into the end zone was the original force of the kick.
I remembered this from a test back in the day that the Florida test was 100 questions. I went to great pains to write this answer down and searched for it on my own. I was lazy and did not pull my test file to find the answer. That was a test score of 99 and the wrong question was one I beat myself over on.....
Go back and re-read the Elvis post ...."TOUCHING DOES NOT MATTER" The moment it crosses the goal line ...touchback.
No, that's just not right. Not in NCAA.
The moment a kick crosses the goal line does NOT create a touchback.
-
What’s your rule for that? Because as I read 8-6-1-b, it is a dead ball as soon as it crosses as long as it still has kicking team force.
-
Do you think rule 6-1-7-a applies?
"When a free kick untouched by Team B touches the ground on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B."
Not in this situation because OP said it was touched/muffed by B.
-
Where this came from.
Auburn/Ole Miss late fourth quarter. Free kick by Ole Miss, ball hits about 15 yards from the endzone headed toward the endzone. Auburn return man stops, and makes a half hearted attempt to field the ball. The ball passes between his hands with no visible indication on camera whether or not he touches the ball. The ball goes into the endzone, #8 turns to pursue but stops when the officials close in signaling touchback. Immediately the announcers start claiming the ball was touched. I'll bet the angles have been played 20 times now. The replay booth in the stadium doesn't call to review more closely and the replay by committee at SEC Headquarters fails to call for a review. The announcers caused the greater amount of questioning the call. The public pounced on the announcers as if they are the experts.
-
What’s your rule for that? Because as I read 8-6-1-b, it is a dead ball as soon as it crosses as long as it still has kicking team force.
Sure. Let me try to explain my reasoning.
I can see where if you read the rule a certain way, it can appear to be the way you say. After all, except for the rules committee themselves, I don't think anyone would claim that the rulebook is always written clearly.
Here's the first part of the Touchback rule. Including the rule you mentioned, 8-6-1-b :
SECTION 6. Touchback
When Declared
ARTICLE 1. It is a touchback when:
a. The ball becomes dead out of bounds behind a goal line, except from an
incomplete forward pass, or becomes dead in the possession of a player on,
above or behind his own goal line and the attacking team is responsible for
the ball being there (Rules 7-2-4-c) (A.R. 7-2-4-I, A.R. 8-6-1-I-III).
b. A kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team’s goal line and
the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there (Exception: Rule
8-4-2-b) (A.R. 6-3-4-III).
You can't read 8-6-1-b in isolation, all by itself. That can throw you off. You have to include the words that start Article 1: "It is a touchback when". After reading that, the rule then goes on to list 2 instances when a tourchback occurs. So piecing this together, it reads "It is a touchback when (b) A kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team’s goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there (Exception: Rule 8-4-2-b) (A.R. 6-3-4-III)"
Let's leave the exception out, that is referring to unsuccessful field goals. And the AR talks about forced touching, so let's ignore that as well.
So the rule boils down to "It is a touchback when a kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team’s goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there."
So it is listing one of the instances of a touchback. But this particular rule does NOT tell us when a kick becomes dead by rule. That is covered in other rules.
Paraphrasing, the rule is basically saying: "If a kick becomes dead behind the defending team's goal line, and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there, then it's a touchback."
But the rule is NOT telling us that the kick automatically becomes dead just because it's in the endzone. Other rules cover when the ball (or kick) becomes dead.
I hope that helps.
-
yes it does - I'll dig into the rules regarding when it becomes dead in the EZ later tonight. I do understand your reasoning though.
-
Go back and re-read the Elvis post ...."TOUCHING DOES NOT MATTER" The moment it crosses the goal line ...touchback.
Not at all what I said.
The situation you originally posed had the legally kicked ball being touched by B and then going out of bounds behind B’s goal line, and my reply was based on those circumstances. My reply dealt only with impetus, since the situation included the ball being touched by Team B before it touched the ground on/beyond B’s goal line. The touching didn’t change impetus, but it did cause the clock to start, and meant that ball would remain alive and in play if it touched the ground in the end zone.
For NCAA football, a legally kicked ball does NOT - repeat - does NOT - become dead simply by breaking the plane of B’s goal line. If it is untouched by B, and touches the ground in B’s end zone - yes - that’s an immediate touchback. If B touches it before it touches the ground on/behind B’s goal line, the ball remains alive and in play. The simple touching does not change impetus. So, if a legally kicked ball, touched by Team B, travels out of bounds behind B’s goal line, Team A is responsible for the ball being dead behind B’s goal line, and that’s a touchback.
-
The ball goes into the endzone
We (as a whole) need to be careful how we describe a play because this changes everything.
-
Where this came from.
Auburn/Ole Miss late fourth quarter. Free kick by Ole Miss, ball hits about 15 yards from the endzone headed toward the endzone. Auburn return man stops, and makes a half hearted attempt to field the ball. The ball passes between his hands with no visible indication on camera whether or not he touches the ball. The ball goes into the endzone, #8 turns to pursue but stops when the officials close in signaling touchback. Immediately the announcers start claiming the ball was touched. I'll bet the angles have been played 20 times now. The replay booth in the stadium doesn't call to review more closely and the replay by committee at SEC Headquarters fails to call for a review. The announcers caused the greater amount of questioning the call. The public pounced on the announcers as if they are the experts.
This is not completely correct. First, when the ball entered the end zone, an Ole Miss player instantly fell on it and recovered it. Second, replay clearly shows a touch by B. While the ball does not change trajectory, the pinky finger does bend back significantly in such a manner that is not normal and can be only explained as being impacted by the ball. There have been calls overturned with way less evidence than I saw. Just because it’s posted on h internet or twitter doesn’t make it suspect.
-
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/PNAGEbJqLUZ5QmZT5HB525he_zc=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21986515/ezgif_6_7d7c389a640a.gif
-
So here's the relevant rules, as I see them:
The outcome if B did not touch the ball (doesn't seem to be any disagreement on this one):
Ball Dead in End Zone (6-1-7-a)
ARTICLE 7. a. When a free kick untouched by Team B touches the ground on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B.
If there was no touching, that would be the rationale that the ball is dead and belongs to B.
But if B did touch it, but did not posess it, it is a muff: 2-11-2
ARTICLE 2. To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it. Muffing the ball does not change its status.
6-1-3-a
ARTICLE 3. a. No Team A player may touch a free-kicked ball until after:
1. It touches a Team B player (Exception: Rules 6-1-4 and 6-5-1-b); criteria met: yes
2. It breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B’s restraining line criteria met: yes (Exception: Rule 6-4-1 (interference with Opportunity, not relevant) (A.R. 2-12-5-I (breaking the plane of the restraining line, not relevant); or
3. It touches any player, the ground, an official or anything else beyond Team B’s restraining line. criteria met: yes
Thereafter, all players of Team A become eligible to touch, recover or catch the kick.
Based on the (supposed) touch(muff) by B, this establishes that A players have a right to the ball. (only one of the criteria must be met)
Once B touches it, the clock should stat (on an official's signal): (3-3-2-a)
Starting and Stopping the Clock
ARTICLE 2. a. Free Kick. After the ball is free-kicked, the game clock shall be started on an official’s signal when the ball is legally touched in the field of play, or when it crosses the goal line after being touched legally by Team B in its end zone. It is subsequently stopped on an official’s signal when the ball is dead by rule. (A. R. 3-3-2-VII)
So we have kick -> touch by B -> clock starts which means the ball is live until possessed by A or B, and dead by rule (player down, through/out the endzone, etc)
note: I have not seen the entirety of the play (just Calhoun's gif, which sure looked like a touch to me.) So, based on the description of the series of events here, and what I see in the rules, A should have had an opportunity to recover, since it was a live ball, even in (but not out of) the end zone. But, if there was no touching, it's a moot point. This isn't intended to be criticism of the officials on the field AT ALL. Their job is incredibly difficult and tbh i'll probably never be good enough to be a college-level official, at any level.( I WANT to be that good, but let's not kid ourselves, I'm also a realist here) I'm just trying to get better at learning the rules, and walking through a scenario like this is immensely helpful for me.
So, to that end, please let me know what errors I have made in arriving at the conclusion I did (I'm sure there are some), and if I missed any relevant rules.
-
There are four different camera views on the play. What doesn't appear in the extremely short clip, is what follows. According to comments made today ....and I have my doubts as to the source. The SEC stated there was no conclusive evidence that the ball was touched.
When the ball passes number 8, he turns to pursue the ball going into the endzone, then stops before he reaches the endzone. The side official blew his whistle. There is no "immediate" coverage consideration under the whistle and replay issue. It's not immediately covered.
Remember, this is a kickoff. Coverage from Old Miss is not fast enough to sprint to an immediate cover at the goal line. There is only one player in entire stadium capable to get there and he's wearing number "1" in white. A world class sprinter timed at low 10's in the 100 yard dash in high school. If it weren't for the pandemic ..he would have been in Tokyo competing.
I doubt the supposed SEC version of no compelling evidence the ball was touched. I say that because it was clear the crew made a clear mistake in the illegal, backward panic pass vs. Arkansas. The snap was fumbled ( direct snap) touched the ground, QB picked up the ball, then spiked it behind his feet...the White blew his whistle because he ignored the first rule of "expect the unexpected" White Hat was caught off guard expecting same ole, same ole, blew his whistle and was caught with his pants down...crew echoed the whistle as the ball bounded away from the QB, was touched by Arkansas, bounced away from the touch, touched the "C" official's foot, then was recovered by Arkansas.
If it was touched, a whistle stopped "8" from chasing the ball in the endzone. Why not simply state "A whistle blew the play dead. Before the ball is recovered in the endzone, officials are signaling touchback.
-
Do any of the camera angles show an official winding the clock after the Auburn kid 'touched' it?
-
Based on the (supposed) touch(muff) by B, this establishes that A players have a right to the ball. (only one of the criteria must be met)
Team A may not touch the ball until they are eligible to touch it, which means it has reached B's restraining line or has been touched by B. In the given example, the ball is clearly well beyond B's restraining line, so A is eligible to touch the ball, regardless of the ruling as to whether or not it was touched by the B player in question.
Once B touches it, the clock should stat (on an official's signal): (3-3-2-a)
On a free kick, the game clock is started when it is legally touched in the field of play (by either team). For example, B11 catches the kick while standing in the end zone. The clock starts when the ball comes back across the goal line into the field of play (either in B11's possession, or loose, should he muff or fumble the ball). His touching of the ball before it touches the ground in the end zone removes the 'automatic' touchback should the ball be muffed and touch the ground in the end zone.
As to the specific example originally presented, based on the view available here, I can't conclude at all that the ball was touched, at any viewing speed. In real time, on the field, at the time, I would have ruled no touch. If the ball then continued on and touched the ground in the end zone (still untouched by B), that would be an instant touchback. Just because the B player turned to pursue the ball does not necessarily mean that he thinks he touched it, because, at that point, Team A is eligible to touch (recover) the ball, if they can get to it before it touches the ground in the end zone. The B player may simply have been pursuing it to recover it himself, so Team A wouldn't get it. Then, when it touched the ground in the end zone, and officials sounded whistles and signaled touchback, he stopped pursuing the ball.
Fans see what they want to see, based on their biases and loyalties. Those simply can't be a part of officiating.
-
There are four different camera views on the play. What doesn't appear in the extremely short clip, is what follows. According to comments made today ....and I have my doubts as to the source. The SEC stated there was no conclusive evidence that the ball was touched.
When the ball passes number 8, he turns to pursue the ball going into the endzone, then stops before he reaches the endzone. The side official blew his whistle. There is no "immediate" coverage consideration under the whistle and replay issue. It's not immediately covered.
Remember, this is a kickoff. Coverage from Old Miss is not fast enough to sprint to an immediate cover at the goal line. There is only one player in entire stadium capable to get there and he's wearing number "1" in white. A world class sprinter timed at low 10's in the 100 yard dash in high school. If it weren't for the pandemic ..he would have been in Tokyo competing.
I doubt the supposed SEC version of no compelling evidence the ball was touched. I say that because it was clear the crew made a clear mistake in the illegal, backward panic pass vs. Arkansas. The snap was fumbled ( direct snap) touched the ground, QB picked up the ball, then spiked it behind his feet...the White blew his whistle because he ignored the first rule of "expect the unexpected" White Hat was caught off guard expecting same ole, same ole, blew his whistle and was caught with his pants down...crew echoed the whistle as the ball bounded away from the QB, was touched by Arkansas, bounced away from the touch, touched the "C" official's foot, then was recovered by Arkansas.
If it was touched, a whistle stopped "8" from chasing the ball in the endzone. Why not simply state "A whistle blew the play dead. Before the ball is recovered in the endzone, officials are signaling touchback.
Once again, you’re wrong. I was watching. There was an Ole Miss player there, chased the ball into the end zone. And fell on it. It was not the side guy who blew the whistle it was the referee. Looked at the side guy, gave the touchback signal, and then went to the side guy and asked him clearly (lip read) did he touch it. These facts are not in question. The only question is did he touch it, is it reviewable, and is there an immediate action clause to a play like this. There seems to conflicting views on this thread.
As to 8 chasing the ball, he had no way to get there before the Ole Miss player did.
-
Do any of the camera angles show an official winding the clock after the Auburn kid 'touched' it?
No the official did not see the touch. The ruling on the field was no touch.
As to the video, that’s a bad copy. There are better ones out there. Nobody’s throwing rocks at the officials on the field. No way to see such a slight touch at full speed. The issue is replay. To not even take a second look is incompetent at best.
-
Here's a much better link:
https://youtu.be/h8vQvx-SSqc
-
IF it was live in the EZ and blown dead, wouldn't that be an IW? Which isn't reviewable?
-
We'll agree to disagree.
Using your clip of the full play and clips I found on You Tube.
The nearest Ole Miss player is at the 15 yard line when the ball reaches the goal line. Something brings #8 Auburn to a stop. As the Ole Miss player crosses the line and begins his slide .....Arm signals are later than the whistle .....My bet is the White Hat Hat blew his whistle, then the chorus of the two combined whistles becomes audible. The ball was not recovered before the the White Hat begins his touchback signal mirrored, as close as possible, by the "L" Official. However, it is almost simultaneous. "L" is at the five yard line .on the kick..he has a more clear view when the ball passes #8 because he is looking straight into that side of #8. The White Hat is blocked and is looking through the back of #8.
Following the signal, the White Hat and "L" official come together ....My bet? "L" said "No touch" When "L" separates, the White Hat makes his announcement.....
What makes #8 stop? Seeing the ball go into the end zone? or a whistle? #8 will never tell anyone what he feels as the ball passes.
I'm old school when it comes to Whistles ....Because I do a lot of Semi Pro under NFL rules .....you trend to swallow the whistle because too many High School Officials doing Semi Pro ....blow it when a runner falls or a receiver falls and no one is touching them ....they can get back up.
-
IF it was live in the EZ and blown dead, wouldn't that be an IW? Which isn't reviewable?
Exactly ..... the question becomes ..When did or (not) the first whistle blow?
The ball is laying in the end zone before the Ole Miss Player comes sliding in. If the White Hat anticipated ....he blew the whistle as the ball crossed into the end zone . Not reviewable......
And if that is the case .... The boards are exploding with questions as to whether or not Auburn is providing bigger checks than Alabama this year..
LOL
-
IF it was live in the EZ and blown dead, wouldn't that be an IW? Which isn't reviewable?
I don't think the "immediate recovery" applies, but IR can create an IW situation, I think. It may be that IR thought that this is not really relevant, as the alternative would have been to rekick. AFAIK NCAA abhors unnecessary replay stoppages.
-
Having never seen the full video until a few minutes ago, I was quite surprised to see the L at the B-7 when the ball shot past the receiver. Conventional mechanics (i.e., in the CCA manual) prescribe the H and L stay on their pylons until the goal line is not 'threatened.' Not sure that would have made any difference with this down, as it played out. But, let's say a Team A player leaped on the ball just on the field side of the goal line, and he rolled into the end zone with the ball. Did he complete the recovery before the ball broke the plane of the goal line (A's ball at the spot of recovery)? Or after, but before touching the ground in the end zone (touchdown for A)? You'd need to be on the goal line to make that ruling. Yeah, the R had jumped up there (also a bit dangerous, if the ball IS touched in the field play and remains alive, and manages to threaten the end line). But the R may not have had the view that would be needed if a player jumped on the ball just outside the goal line.
Back to the action in question. The close sideline SLO-MOTION view leaves no doubt that the ball was touched. You can see the receiver's pinky finger deflect very rapidly - even with slo-motion - as the ball passes his hand. That is not a normal human finger movement, so it had to be due to the finger being struck - ever so slightly - by the ball. Not a human on the planet would have seen that in real time. Even if the L had been at the pylon - a better view of this action, IMHO - I don't think he would have positively seen this micro-touching.
As they would have said before replay: Them's the breaks. Get over it. Get better.
-
Clear recovery applies to the immediate continuing action of any loose ball rules dead and supersedes inadvertent whistle rules (as that is the whole purpose of the continuing action rule). 12-3-3-d and 4-1-2-b-3 Exception are the applicable rules here. The touching of a kick is also reviewable under 12-3-4-a. So replay absolutely could have stepped in here and awarded A a touchdown.
-
Finally, a common sense objective answer. Thanks.
-
For context, here’s Kiffens comments via twitter:
Lane Kiffin says he just got off the phone with the SEC regarding blown call, "really struggle with this one."
Say fans "deserve to hear what I was just told," says he can't share it though per SEC rules.
"I had to take a 5-minute yoga session before walking in here."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Clear recovery applies to the immediate continuing action of any loose ball rules dead and supersedes inadvertent whistle rules (as that is the whole purpose of the continuing action rule). 12-3-3-d and 4-1-2-b-3 Exception are the applicable rules here. The touching of a kick is also reviewable under 12-3-4-a. So replay absolutely could have stepped in here and awarded A a touchdown.
This is correct from someone that is obviously very familiar with Rule 12. I realize not everyone has the need to delve into that rule or the Instant Replay Casebook, but if you feel it necessary to post replay opinions, then it would be good to do some research first.
-
This is correct from someone that is obviously very familiar with Rule 12. I realize not everyone has the need to delve into that rule or the Instant Replay Casebook, but if you feel it necessary to post replay opinions, then it would be good to do some research first.
Retweet.
Thanks for the info guys. I’m back to the fed page where I belong.
-
The SEC has issued the following statement related to the Auburn-Ole Miss football game of October 24:
On the kickoff return in the Auburn at Ole Miss football game at 5:43 in the 4th quarter, the SEC has determined the replay official should have stopped the game for further review of the play. In the football officiating replay process every play is reviewed but, when appropriate, the game is stopped for further review.
Because the play was not appropriately stopped for further review, the necessary slow-motion view of the play was not viewed by the replay official to determine if the ruling on the field should have been reversed.
-
So "theoretically", in a similar play like this where we have an instant replay reversed call to an IW, and based on the visuals here R sounding whistle as A player stops about 5 yards from the ball and the nearest B player is at least 5 yards further away would you actually consider this "immediate continuing action". And further, who actually gets to decide the immediate continuing action component? Is it the R who makes the call, or the replay official(s)?
-
I would assume once it went to replay it would be their responsibility. Also assuming, because I do not study NCAA rules, if both players stopped and didn’t recover, immediate action would not apply but because the Ole Miss player didn’t stop, but continued his action and recovered, that would fall under the qualifications for the immediate action. I’m not sure time or distance is a factor as much as stopping or continuing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
In my opinion that was definitely quick enough to award a recovery and touchdown. The player who ends up with the ball is already at the goal line and going into his slide to recover the ball when the whistle is sounded and the signal is given. The Team B player who touched the ball had already turned away, so him not going after the ball is irrelevant to continuing action. It’s not like he saw the signal or heard the whistle and then walked away. He had already abandoned the ball and was this unaffected by the inadvertent whistle.
-
Don't depend on the chorus of whistles you hear.
The White Hat puts the whistle into his mouth then starts the signal before the Ole Miss player crosses the line. On the clip Calhoun supplied when he has a frozen picture ....the rest of that clip distinctly shows the White Hat putting the whistle in his mouth and starting his signal. Until I saw that clip in it's entirety I was beginning to be convinced every was done after the Ole Miss player slides into the end zone.
Instant replay, according to the SEC, shows nothing to overturn. The fact that "R" and "L" come together ...is telling ...short conversation mike switched on and announced that the ball was not touched and the result was a touchback.
If the ball was touched beyond the five ......recovery five yards deep in the end zone is not "Immediate"
I still think they blew it and both stadium and SEC Headquarters had nothing to delay review again then overturn.
-
Want to know how much being stupid cost Kiffin?
Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin afterward lamented the call and retweeted a fan on Twitter who called the SEC’s officiating disgraceful while claiming Auburn was gifted another win. That action led to the SEC fining Kiffin $25,000 on Monday, but not before the Rebels' first-year coach had a discussion with SEC head of officiating John McDaid earlier in the day and then publicly expressed frustration with the league’s lack of transparency
Well, it's good to know Kiffin is contributing to the food provided to each Officiating Crew the rest of the year ......
-
Want to know how much being stupid cost Kiffin?
Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin afterward lamented the call and retweeted a fan on Twitter who called the SEC’s officiating disgraceful while claiming Auburn was gifted another win. That action led to the SEC fining Kiffin $25,000 on Monday, but not before the Rebels' first-year coach had a discussion with SEC head of officiating John McDaid earlier in the day and then publicly expressed frustration with the league’s lack of transparency
Well, it's good to know Kiffin is contributing to the food provided to each Officiating Crew the rest of the year ......
Maybe stupid. May be willing to spend chump change out of his multi million dollar contract to call attention to incompetent (at best) replay booth. It’s not the first time it’s happened. This year. I kinda suspected you had an agenda when you posted this the way you did. Now I’m certain. Why don’t we stick to the facts of officiating and leave the name calling out?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
In my opinion that was definitely quick enough to award a recovery and touchdown. The player who ends up with the ball is already at the goal line and going into his slide to recover the ball when the whistle is sounded and the signal is given. The Team B player who touched the ball had already turned away, so him not going after the ball is irrelevant to continuing action. It’s not like he saw the signal or heard the whistle and then walked away. He had already abandoned the ball and was this unaffected by the inadvertent whistle.
Are you looking at the same video as I am? R puts whistle in his mouth as the B player is crossing the 5 yard line and the A player is still near the 20 yard line. Just after the R puts the whistle in his mouth the B player stops and looks directly at the R. That indicates to me that the R has sounded his whistle. The A player at that point is just inside the 15. Not sure how that can qualify as "immediate continuing action" if in fact the R knew that the B player stopped as he sounded his whistle with the A player still that far away. IMHO when we can first hear a whistle on the video is not that important, but when the R first sounded the whistle is.
But the actual question is who has the final "immediate continuing action" call? The official on the field who sounded the whistle and the R (the same in this case) or replay?
-
Are you looking at the same video as I am? R puts whistle in his mouth as the B player is crossing the 5 yard line and the A player is still near the 20 yard line. Just after the R puts the whistle in his mouth the B player stops and looks directly at the R. That indicates to me that the R has sounded his whistle. The A player at that point is just inside the 15. Not sure how that can qualify as "immediate continuing action" if in fact the R knew that the B player stopped as he sounded his whistle with the A player still that far away. IMHO when we can first hear a whistle on the video is not that important, but when the R first sounded the whistle is.
But the actual question is who has the final "immediate continuing action" call? The official on the field who sounded the whistle and the R (the same in this case) or replay?
What the onfield officials do or don’t do with the whistle or signals has absolutely nothing to do with how replay rules on this play. The actions of the player(s) during the loose ball are all that matters.
The Ole Miss player never pauses from running directly to the ball. The fact that he recovers before the ball stops moving is another good indicator that he recovered in the immediate continuing action. Replay erred in not stopping and reversing to an Ole Miss touchdown.
-
Are you looking at the same video as I am? R puts whistle in his mouth as the B player is crossing the 5 yard line and the A player is still near the 20 yard line. Just after the R puts the whistle in his mouth the B player stops and looks directly at the R. That indicates to me that the R has sounded his whistle. The A player at that point is just inside the 15. Not sure how that can qualify as "immediate continuing action" if in fact the R knew that the B player stopped as he sounded his whistle with the A player still that far away. IMHO when we can first hear a whistle on the video is not that important, but when the R first sounded the whistle is.
But the actual question is who has the final "immediate continuing action" call? The official on the field who sounded the whistle and the R (the same in this case) or replay?
Makes you wonder why the Ole Miss player didn't stop, doesn't it? Maybe A was hoping R would bail him out..
-
Makes you wonder why the Ole Miss player didn't stop, doesn't it? Maybe A was hoping R would bail him out..
I don't know what went through the Ole Miss player's head but one alternative is that he's been correctly coached that it almost never hurts you or your team to chase down a loose ball even if it is apparently dead?
-
I would agree completely.
-
I don't know what went through the Ole Miss player's head but one alternative is that he's been correctly coached that it almost never hurts you or your team to chase down a loose ball even if it is apparently dead?
Why would a player be coached to do such a thing? Because replay might overturn the call on the field and immediate action would apply. So, fall on it. The Auburn player would have been wise to do the same thing. Especially since he knew he touched it. IMO, that’s why he chases after it. The smart thing to do would have been to ignore the whistle and fall in the ball. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if he had.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
First item: Suggesting that the comment of Kiffin making a stupid text is not name calling. Kiffen knows the rules and the decorum of the league. You do your complaining internally and not by social media. You can bet your bottom dollar that Kiffin doesn't pay a dime ....Ole Miss writes that check.
Officials know that decorum as well. Which drives those on the outside ....crazy.
By diving into that comment ....I can only surmise that you are an Ole Miss fan. For those who have never been ..... The most beautiful co-eds on any campus in the nation. There is something in the water over there.
Thus I will expose my allegiance ....My GrandFather coached with Shug Jordan and was responsible for fielding the National Championship team in 1957. He was also on the search committee that brought Pat Dye to Auburn. So, You know that I bleed Orange and Blue.
CalhounLJ .... we still do not have a definitive answer to this. Typical for a Official's meeting, where a rule question expands to a constant debate. There is still a issue of Article 2 and it's statement regarding a touch. Unless there is another rule elsewhere in the book, casebook we don't have any answer.
The SEC Comment appears to be a boiler plate neutral press comment meant to appease and calm the masses. While stating an issue regarding instant replay ....they throw no one under the bus and do not blame anyone nor provide a final comment on the rule or if any was missed. They only say replay did not ask for a review. They ran the tape .....I know too many replay officials and understand that it was reviewed not once but several times. Keep in mind ..... it was following a kick delay to get the Offense and Defense teams on the field plus set up chains. There is no excuse and I bet Instant Replay reported ....at least ....nothing that would change the call.
And I meant every word I said about Ole Miss Coeds ....... Bottle that drinking water, there is something magic there.
-
I think you're the only one who doesn't (or maybe doesn't want to?) have a definitive answer to this question. The touch by B8 starts the clock and means the ball remains alive when it touches the ground in the end zone. The crew incorrectly ruled it dead. To your response about not relying on the chorus of whistles for replay, why would we rely on anything else? The whistle and signal are what kill this play. Where the ball was touched has no bearing on continuing action. Continuing action starts when the ball is declared dead, not when the ball is touched or even when it touches the ground in the end zone.
-
........ Continuing action starts when the ball is declared dead, not when the ball is touched or even when it touches the ground in the end zone.
And according to the past comments over the years, "Continuing action" stops when it is clear that one or more players have stopped after the officials have killed the play. IMHO that applies here and does not change the clear and obvious, albeit using UHD replays, that the ball was touched.
-
And according to the past comments over the years, "Continuing action" stops when it is clear that one or more players have stopped after the officials have killed the play. IMHO that applies here and does not change the clear and obvious, albeit using UHD replays, that the ball was touched.
I'm not a Replay expert. But I think we've already been given an answer in this thread by one or two people who are Replay experts. And if we're wise, we'll listen to them.
In my view, Replay continues to evolve and be refined. After the Auburn - Arkansas game (attempted spike play), they gave more guidance regarding "the immediate continuing football action". To make it even clearer. They primarily directed that to the Replay Officials and the Coordinators. But they also talked about it on the national training tape.
They stressed that it's "the immediate continuing football action". If players in the vicinity of the ball continue to play it, regardless of what other players on the field do, then that's immediate continuing football action. It is a judgement call and they expect Replay to use good football sense.
I agree with what the Replay experts have already told us about this kick play. That's a touch of a kick and that's immediate continuing action.
-
I'm not a Replay expert. But I think we've already been given an answer in this thread by one or two people who are Replay experts. And if we're wise, we'll listen to them.
In my view, Replay continues to evolve and be refined. After the Auburn - Arkansas game (attempted spike play), they gave more guidance regarding "the immediate continuing football action". To make it even clearer. They primarily directed that to the Replay Officials and the Coordinators. But they also talked about it on the national training tape.
They stressed that it's "the immediate continuing football action". If players in the vicinity of the ball continue to play it, regardless of what other players on the field do, then that's immediate continuing football action. It is a judgement call and they expect Replay to use good football sense.
I agree with what the Replay experts have already told us about this kick play. That's a touch of a kick and that's immediate continuing action.
Yes...the National tape after the Auburn/Arkansas play made it clear that play should have been reversed. Same guidance for immediate continuing action applies here.