RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: mccormicw on November 24, 2011, 10:28:32 PM
-
1st down after a penalty at the A (UT) 1ft line in the 4th quarter with just over 10 minutes to go. I know it isnt a perfect angle, but it sure looks like A&M is line up clearly offsides. Any thoughts?
-
What about the personal foul on the last drive? Any thoughts on that?
-
Any thoughts on the personal foul on the interception returned for a TD by Texas. Why was it declined? It should have carried over to the Try or Kickoff at the option of UT.
-
Any thoughts on the personal foul on the interception returned for a TD by Texas. Why was it declined? It should have carried over to the Try or Kickoff at the option of UT.
I think they did end up enforcing the penalty and have Texas kick off from the 45 as the kick off was booted out of the end zone.
-
I think they did end up enforcing the penalty and have Texas kick off from the 45 as the kick off was booted out of the end zone.
OK. I didn't watch the kickoff so they must have made the correction without announcing it.
-
What about the personal foul on the last drive? Any thoughts on that?
It's there. You could make arguments that it might be too technical, but there is crown-to-side-of-head contact long after the pass is clearly incomplete. The defender is letting up, but he can avoid the issue entirely if he doesn't make contact or makes contact differently.
(http://iscoolandgoodatsports.com/robbed.gif)
-
OK. I didn't watch the kickoff so they must have made the correction without announcing it.
Correct, they did enforce the penalty on the kickoff without announcing it.
-
It's there. You could make arguments that it might be too technical, but there is crown-to-side-of-head contact long after the pass is clearly incomplete. The defender is letting up, but he can avoid the issue entirely if he doesn't make contact or makes contact differently.
(http://iscoolandgoodatsports.com/robbed.gif)
well, i am an aggie, but man is that a ticky tack call for the 4th quarter in a close game. Maybe it would be easier to swallow if he actually, you know, knocked him over or something, as opposed to just graze by.
-
I thought at the time and looking at that gif seems to support that he could have easily avoided contact altogether and at the very least avoid contact with the crown of his helmet. It almost looks like he deliberately raised his head to pop the receiver near the end. I'm neither Aggie nor Longhorn, and I can see where if your team is in A&M's position you'd want the officials to keep their flags in their pocket for anything short of actual murder, but I don't think there's anything in the rule about the recipient having to get knocked to the ground and when in doubt on a safety foul it would seem like this should be called.
-
So let's see:
1. The A player by definition is a defenseless player
2. The pass is clearly INC
3. The B defender clearly has time to avoid contact
4. The B player intentionally uses the crown of his helmet to deliver a blow to the head
What is there to discuss?
-
Slightly off-topic, but did anyone else see TAMU's left tackle in an illegal formation ALL NIGHT?
-
These days, many tackles have a hard time knowing where the LOS is located. If we would start calling it, they would stop doing it. But I know I'm beating a deadhorse:
As for the PFs... this game was full of them and ^flag were warranted. The crew, IMO, did an admirable job keeping control of a game that could have easily gotten out of hand. Got to give them one of these: tiphat:
-
Found this video of the PF on last drive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUx7t-VOKEs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUx7t-VOKEs)
-
So let's see:
1. The A player by definition is a defenseless player
2. The pass is clearly INC
3. The B defender clearly has time to avoid contact
4. The B player intentionally uses the crown of his helmet to deliver a blow to the head
What is there to discuss?
You forgot the part that it was the Aggies! ;D
-
You have to err on the side of not making this call. You have to make this big or non-existent. The offensive player was hardly affected, and the contact to the head was totally incidental. The defender is letting up and one could argue that he probably couldn't have avoided contact. Maybe not all the contact that happened, but we don't throw a flag for all cases of a little excessive contact.
The defensive collapse is the Aggies own fault. But I think the flag should have stayed in his pocket on this one.
-
You have to err on the side of not making this call. You have to make this big or non-existent. .....
In fact, Rule 9-1-3 say exactly the opposite. This is one of the few rules where the book explicitly states ".... when in question, it is a foul".
The defender had far more than enough time to get his helmet out of the play, and even avoid contact if he wanted to - IMO this is a foul every time. There's absolutely no "make it big" with this type of helmet hit according to the very clear rules.
-
So let's see:
1. The A player by definition is a defenseless player
2. The pass is clearly INC
3. The B defender clearly has time to avoid contact
4. The B player intentionally uses the crown of his helmet to deliver a blow to the head
What is there to discuss?
Well, your premise.
1. & 2. No argument.
3. Watch it in REAL time and think about how fast the player is moving and how much ground he covers. We're talking about less than .4 seconds. Maybe less than .3 seconds. If a human's reaction time is .25 seconds, this gives this fellow very little time to avoid the contact.
4. Does the player intentionally hit him with his helmet or is he trying to avoid contact. With this little time to react it's hard to say either way.
-
4. Does the player intentionally hit him with his helmet or is he trying to avoid contact. With this little time to react it's hard to say either way.
Even if you can't be certain that " .... the player intentionally hit him with his helmet or is he trying to avoid contact." it really doesn't matter, rule 9-1-3 is clear that this requires a flag.
-
No doubt about it, that PF call was a game changer.
-
No doubt about it, that PF call was a game changer.
yes it was. It might not have changed the outcome of the game, but the extra 15 yards didnt hurt.
I disagree with NVFOA_UMP as well. If everytime there was contact a split second after a play, we would have flags after every single play. It wasnt obvious watching it live that their helmets even TOUCHED. When you slow it down, it is a grazing motion at best. It was nitpicky. Let me draw an analogy, basically, they gave the kid a $10,000 fine for going driving 31mph in a 30mph zone. That is what it was. It wasnt a call that needed to be made.
-
well, i am an aggie, but man is that a ticky tack call for the 4th quarter in a close game. Maybe it would be easier to swallow if he actually, you know, knocked him over or something, as opposed to just graze by.
well, since it's a close game, I guess we could overlook a PF.... ::)
-
well, since it's a close game, I guess we could overlook a PF.... ::)
Well, I call HS in TX, and if I called that one in a similar situation (or likely at any time), the losing coach is unlikely to ever say, "yeah, that crew is fine with me." I know we can't call a game based on what the coach thinks, but this was NOT a foul. You can just as easily conclude that the defender was trying to avoid him, as you can conclude, he was trying to hit him. In fact, I think the former is what really happened. The defender was just moving too fast to completely avoid him. Maybe if they're going to make this call, we should just put flags on the wide receivers and not allow any contact, just pull the flag and he's down.
-
I know we can't call a game based on what the coach thinks, but...
I don't know anything about, and I'm not commenting on, the call in question. But, if you believe your own words, then why say them? What you really just said was that you don't want to get scratched for making a call that annoys a coach. Not totally your fault and you are not alone - that's the #1 thing wrong with Texas HS football - coaches selecting officials. Until they are out of the selection process, this thought will be on many Texas HS officials minds every time they take the field. Shameful.
-
I agree completely. I'm just not sure how to fix the situation. When I started, I was naive enough to believe it could easily be fixed. 10+ years in, I'm far less certain. In fact, I'm not even sure how to start.
Also, taking out the context of ... "but this was NOT a foul." Changes what I said a good bit.
-
I think that call has to be made, as, aside from every other point made here, there was unquestionably contact between the head gears - and there is currently NO greater emphasis in the game than in avoiding anything that could remotely cause a concussion. I especially liked the reaction of the kid in street clothes >:D
-
A professor has done a scientific analysis of the hit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSWosoQg8w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSWosoQg8w)
-
A professor has done a scientific analysis of the hit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSWosoQg8w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSWosoQg8w)
LOL
-
What a hoot! Yeah, officials need to learn some physics! Ha!
Oh, should we point out Dr. Noah's errors? That pounds are NOT a unit of mass? That therefore they cannot be used to calculate momentum? That claims of an "inevitable collision" ignore the fact that players can stop themselves? That in any case the inevitability of a collision does not entail illegal helmet contact?
I have a PhD too, but it's not in second guessing. ::)
-
I have a PhD too, but it's not in second guessing. ::)
^good
-
What a hoot! Yeah, officials need to learn some physics! Ha!
Oh, should we point out Dr. Noah's errors? That pounds are NOT a unit of mass? That therefore they cannot be used to calculate momentum? That claims of an "inevitable collision" ignore the fact that players can stop themselves? That in any case the inevitability of a collision does not entail illegal helmet contact?
I have a PhD too, but it's not in second guessing. ::)
No PhD here, but for simplicity sake I have no problem with his use of pounds instead of Kgs. It is pretty comical but his point that it was going to take a lot of force to overcome the momentum involved and avoid a collision altogether is not lost on me.
Just my opinion, but if no flag had been thrown on this I seriously doubt we would have very many if any posting video and getting on here to say how bad it was that they missed the call. It just wasn't that obvious or blatant when seen in real time.
-
the Doc's bio:
Bio
Dr. Noah Dean is a Texas native who is deeply involved in the world of fitness, health, and wellness. He has a M.S. in Kinesiology from Angelo State University and a Ph.D. in Motor Neuroscience from Texas A&M University. In 2009 he became a certified personal trainer through the American College of Sports Medicine.
Much of Dr. Dean's wisdom comes from his dynamic background. He has worked as a self-defense instructor, hurdles coach, actor, bar tender, writer, personal wellness trainer, and stuntman (NBC series Friday Night Lights). Dr. Dean now works as a full time assistant professor of Kinesiology and part-time wellness trainer/instructor.
-
Just my opinion, but if no flag had been thrown on this I seriously doubt we would have very many if any posting video and getting on here to say how bad it was that they missed the call. It just wasn't that obvious or blatant when seen in real time.
Yep. There wouldnt be any discussion about it at all.
-
4. Does the player intentionally hit him with his helmet or is he trying to avoid contact. With this little time to react it's hard to say either way.
Even if you can't be certain that " .... the player intentionally hit him with his helmet or is he trying to avoid contact." it really doesn't matter, rule 9-1-3 is clear that this requires a flag.
I think 9-1-3 could apply here but, unlike NVFOA, in my opinion it does matter and requires intent. 9-1-3 and 4 both say "no player shall target and initiate". What is target? The point of emphasis on FR-8 clears it up for me in that "targeted" contact is interchangable with "intentional". To me it looks like the defender is attempting to avoid contact. In any case he certainly didn't launch himself to "light him up" as he could have and the fact the top of his helmet made any contact at all is a result of the height difference and the receiver leaning in, not intent.
I don't think 9-1-4 applies at all because I would question if the receiver meets the defenseless player definition. If you conclude, as many of you have, and argue that the defender had the ability to avoid contact after the catch is not made, would you not conclude that the receiver also has the ability to avoid contact. It is clear that his concentration is no longer on catching the pass just as the defender is clearly no longer attempting to make a tackle or deliver a hit.
This is still football and contact is often unavoidable. This contact is not malicious nor dangerous and I personally don't think it is the kind of contact the rulesmakers were trying to get out of the game. I don't care what the game situation is this one stays in my pocket. For the official that made the call though, he can always hang his hat on the "when in question" aspect as it relates to the intent.
-
I think he's hanging his hat on the defender comes in head up until right before contact and then lowers with his crown hitting the A player's helmet. It's a foul the powers that be want called. Too many still seem to want to wait until the hit player is on the ground knocked senseless before thinking about making this call. It's where the game is going, get used to it or you might end up on a supervisor tape like the one I heard where in frustration he says "I don't understand why we continue to miss this call". I'm beginning to think perhaps it's not being missed as much as too many officials won't make it.
-
Mike L; Are you saying that you conclude the contact was intentional because the defender dipped his head slightly? If he hadn't ducked a little and the two players still bumped helmets is the call the same?
-
I see why it might have been called but man, I think a quiet word is the best option.
Sent from my MID7016 using Tapatalk
-
. . . this was NOT a foul. . . .
Balderdash, batsqueeze, and rot. The illustrated play is a foul under wither NFHS or NCAA codes and regardless of the game situation.
-
From the angle of the calling official this is a penalty. His view from the field of play he is perpendicular to the B player and makes his call. I dont agree with it because i get to see it from the camera and different angles. I can see why his flag comes out. I am sure he would agree with many of the posts on here after watching the replay as we all have done.