RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: boydmarq on December 05, 2011, 08:05:30 AM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L5CC7QuaTU
Is this the right call or should the R have blown it dead?
-
Hm, the right call? Looks like a catch, a fumble, and a recovery for TD.
If one were to advocate killing it, when exactly would be the right time? Suppose B wanders around for a moment and then takes off, just as R kills it. Is that the right time? Or should he have killed it once the ball was on the ground?
I don't like the idea of R guessing what B is up to and ruling based on the guess.
-
Hm, the right call? Looks like a catch, a fumble, and a recovery for TD.
If one were to advocate killing it, when exactly would be the right time? Suppose B wanders around for a moment and then takes off, just as R kills it. Is that the right time? Or should he have killed it once the ball was on the ground?
I don't like the idea of R guessing what B is up to and ruling based on the guess.
MB, hasn't the receiver "given himself up" well before the ball gets knocked out of his hands? Not sure if there is any NCAA rule basis or AR (must take knee?); but it seems some common sense would be applicable...
-
Not sure if there is any NCAA rule basis or AR (must take knee?); ...
I couldn't find any rule or AR to support killing it, but I agree that once he gave himself up, it would seem appropriate to blow the whistle to avoid someone lighting him up after sprinting for 75 yards.
-
Looks like the right call to me. The only rule I can think of that tells you the official can blow the play dead is if the ball is just lying on the ground and no one makes an attempt to make a play on it. That doesnt apply here since A)the ball is in A's posession B) B never stops playing. I'll bet someone was livid after this, but good call IMO.
BTW, when I clicked this link, I expected a completely different discussion.
-
BTW, when I clicked this link, I expected a completely different discussion.
Okay, I'll bite: what kind of discussion were you expecting?
-
Okay, I'll bite: what kind of discussion were you expecting?
How to score with chicks I'll bet :)
-
I couldn't find any rule or AR to support killing it, but I agree that once he gave himself up, it would seem appropriate to blow the whistle to avoid someone lighting him up after sprinting for 75 yards.
So, what's your call if somebody comes down and lights him up at full speed rather than just knocking the ball out?
If it's a live ball, isn't that a legal hit? The returner is going to get killed because he doesn't know the rules.
-
So, what's your call if somebody comes down and lights him up at full speed rather than just knocking the ball out?
If it's a live ball, isn't that a legal hit? The returner is going to get killed because he doesn't know the rules.
By rule, you would have a legal hit as long as he didn't target or lead with crown of helmet. That would be a lesson learned the REALLY HARD way.
-
Didn't see anything in that play that made the ball dead until it was possessed by the kicking team in the receiving team's end zone.
Strange play, but since there is no rule or AR support to declare the ball dead before it was recovered in the EZ, the correct ruling was made.
^TD
-
That would be a lesson learned the REALLY HARD way.
Agree and LOL
-
AR 8-6-1-II would support a touchback in this play.
B1 intercepts Team A’s legal forward pass in his own end zone, after
which A1 snatches the ball from his hand while in Team B’s end
zone. RULING: Touchdown. The ball is not automatically dead when
intercepted, but it becomes dead when A1 gets possession. However, if
in the judgment of the official there is perceptible time during which
the Team B player made no attempt to advance after the interception,
declaring a touchback is justified.
-
AR 8-6-1-II would support a touchback in this play.
B1 intercepts Team A’s legal forward pass in his own end zone, after
which A1 snatches the ball from his hand while in Team B’s end
zone. RULING: Touchdown. The ball is not automatically dead when
intercepted, but it becomes dead when A1 gets possession. However, if
in the judgment of the official there is perceptible time during which
the Team B player made no attempt to advance after the interception,
declaring a touchback is justified.
Interesting... do you think you can apply this to a free kick as well?
-
Interesting... do you think you can apply this to a free kick as well?
I do. The team B runner very clearly stops playing and the referee should have blown this dead way before the team A players entered the end zone.
-
I disagree:
8-6-1-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."
Then look at
4-1-3-b "(Ball Declared Dead) When any part of the ball carrier's body, except his hand or foot touches the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses posession of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his body except his hand or foot."
So it's not a touchback until the ball is DEAD in the EZ and the ball is not dead until something happens to make it dead. Nothing happened in this case, so it's still a live ball.
-
Jason's point (a good one) is that there is an AR that gives support to shutting it down even though technically it is not dead. The AR speaks to an interception but a kick should be no different.
-
I disagree:
The difference between reading what the rule SAYS, and reading what the rule MEANS.
-
For those advocating not killing it, what would you do as R if the receiver flipped the ball to you? Dodge it? Would that kill the play?
-
Yes, no
-
It doesn't appear that in the judgment of the R there was perceptible time during which
the Team B player made no attempt to advance after receiving the free kick.
From the moment he caught it, he made no attempt to advance.
-
From the moment he caught it, he made no attempt to advance.
Agree. However: every kick receiver knows that if you're not going to run a live ball out of the EZ, you take a knee to down it.
This guy was keeping his options open: he waited to see if A gave up on their coverage, and then he would have run it out. An R killing it just before he took off would have had hell to pay.
I can see why, given that he dropped the ball, you might want to kill it; and I can see rules justification for doing so. I just don't see why you'd want to bail the guy out: he made a choice about how to play that return, and it didn't work out for him. IMO he got what he deserved, and coaches will think twice about calling this play next time.
-
Had the referee killed the play because in his judgment there was a perceptible time during which
the Team B player made no attempt to advance after he caught the kick, would we be discussing this play? IMO, the answer is no. I understand the letter of the law, but we often don't follow the letter of the law. I did a search of the rulebook for "point of attack". I may have missed it but I was unable to locate the phrase one time. Don't we use "point of attack" as one of the criteria for deciding if we will call a hold? The book says holding is holding. It says nothing about "point of attack". How can we adjust the holding rule and yet ignore an AR, CFO or RR memo (and there intent)?
-
This guy was keeping his options open: he waited to see if A gave up on their coverage, and then he would have run it out. An R killing it just before he took off would have had hell to pay.
Huh? First, he turns his back to the defense. Second, he holds the ball like you would hold a briefcase with his arm loosely hanging down. Third, he wasn't looking at the kicking team coming down the field, he was walking toward the official slowly and casually. NOTHING in his actions showed he was trying to keep his options open.
Should he have taken a knee? Well, that would have settled the issue. He could have walked out of the back of the end zone and this still would a have been a non-issue. But you can't argue that he made ANY motion to "keep his options open" or do anything other than give himself up.
It doesn't appear that in the judgment of the R there was perceptible time during which
the Team B player made no attempt to advance after receiving the free kick.
If that's true, then it was extremely poor judgment. The tape shows there was over six seconds between the receiver gaining possession and when he was hit by the defense. I would much rather think that the R felt the runner needed to take a knee by rule than to think that his judgment was so bad to think that six seconds was not a perceptible time.
-
I completely agree with Atlanta Blue. He gave himself up as soon as he caught it and I believe the referee wasn't cogitating an obscure AR that may or may not apply to this play when he failed to blow the whistle. He was saying to himself: "C'mon, put that knee down!"
-
................ Don't we use "point of attack" as one of the criteria for deciding if we will call a hold? The book says holding is holding. It says nothing about "point of attack". How can we adjust the holding rule and yet ignore an AR, CFO or RR memo (and there intent)?
There's longstanding guidance on how to enforce many of the advantage/disadvantage fouls and holding is one of them. One available guidance document is the The Ultimate Book on Holding: Know it, See it, Call it – 72 Pages that as noted on the NASO website "Illuminates one of football officiatings most difficult and debated calls. All aspects of the eight types of holding are covered in detail. Not only does the book explain how to call holding, it clarifies why and when to call it as well."
And that's 72 pages just so we can get an understanding of how to call one specific foul. Speaking for myself, I don't think we need a rulebook of 1000+ pages so we can find every specific play, with a related specific guidance on every possible foul scenario, so we can point to it and say we got it right - that's where judgment and accepted past practice come in.
-
I completely agree with Atlanta Blue. He gave himself up as soon as he caught it and I believe the referee wasn't cogitating an obscure AR that may or may not apply to this play when he failed to blow the whistle. He was saying to himself: "C'mon, put that knee down!"
That's why we study all year, go to clinics, read this board, etc. etc. - to separate ourselves from the 95% of the guys who can work 95% of the plays.
-
That's why we study all year, go to clinics, read this board, etc. etc. - to separate ourselves from the 95% of the guys who can work 95% of the plays.
So what's your take on this, Andrew? Should he have killed it or not?
-
So what's your take on this, Andrew? Should he have killed it or not?
With the amount of time the return guy spent walking casually with the ball I would have blown this dead.
-
The AR rules Touchdown and gives a way to "justify" another result. I will go with the ruling.
This is one of a very few rule situations where you are right no matter what you rule. I kinda like situations like that. It limits how much we can screw up by making us right no matter what.
-
This is one of a very few rule situations where you are right no matter what you rule. I kinda like situations like that. It limits how much we can screw up by making us right no matter what.
Great comment, Jason. Im with you on that one!
-
This is one of a very few rule situations where you are right no matter what you rule. I kinda like situations like that. It limits how much we can screw up by making us right no matter what.
The problem with being right whichever way you rule also means you're wrong whichever way you rule as well!
-
Rule 8-6-1 & AR 8-6-1-II: Touchback...
This AR deals with an interception in the EZ... that said the same principle should apply to a kick into the EZ: "If in the judgment of the official there is perceptible time during which the Team B player made no attempt to advance after the interception, declaring a touchback is justified."
Don't allow the Team B player to decoy and run for a score. Don't let Team A score a cheap TD when the player obviously gave up.