RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on October 22, 2012, 04:12:12 PM

Title: KCI ?
Post by: TXMike on October 22, 2012, 04:12:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvuToyTqxxg&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: CenTexZebra on October 22, 2012, 04:28:59 PM
Looks like he might have been blocked into the return man.

I have a question, and I don't know the 6 man(thats what it looks like) mechanics, but why is everyone on the crew pretty much walking?
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: Chester on October 22, 2012, 04:52:12 PM
I'd go with the BJ here with KCI.  It appears R doesn't block K until he has contacted the receiver.  Might be a block in the back too.  KCI on A.  IBW on B. 
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: younggun on October 22, 2012, 04:54:15 PM
Why does it also look like the BJ gives up on the play? He isnt even looking at what is going on with the ball.
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on October 22, 2012, 09:08:26 PM
Real close one here but frame by frame review puts B's block in the back on A just before A then contacts the receiver.  Given that I'd have a flag on B and since A's been blocked illegally, I don't think we can have a KCI call.  Not sure that A could have stopped, but with the B contact we can't know for sure.
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: DallasLJ on October 22, 2012, 10:18:46 PM
Where is the LJ in this play.  A little late off the line to begin with and then never comes into the screen -- walking down the sideline.
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: TXMike on October 23, 2012, 04:26:55 AM
7 man crew.  No need for the L down there.
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: El Macman on October 23, 2012, 06:52:25 AM
IMHO, the block is so weak as to be completely ineffective. It does not alter the flyer's momentum or path in the least. He would have buzzed and/or contacted the receiver with or without that inconsequential contact. KCI.
But, the B definitely quits officiating. He's got to get his attention back to the action of, and around, the ball. And a little hustle - at the appropriate time - would definitely be in order. 
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: Welpe on October 23, 2012, 09:01:07 AM
IMHO, the block is so weak as to be completely ineffective. It does not alter the flyer's momentum or path in the least. He would have buzzed and/or contacted the receiver with or without that inconsequential contact. KCI.

I agree with this. I also do not have a foul for IBB by the Team B blocker.
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on October 23, 2012, 12:05:43 PM
IMHO, the block is so weak as to be completely ineffective. It does not alter the flyer's momentum or path in the least.

Actually I strongly disagree.  The initial contact just as the flyer starts to pull up (the quick shove in the back) is 100% effective in forcing him off balance and into the receiver.  The stop action clearly shows that fact.  We have no real way of knowing if A could have stopped if he was not pushed and IMO we cannot make a WAG that he could or could not have.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: TXMike on October 24, 2012, 07:09:47 AM
If you can see all what you wrote in that still photo then you should have been used to analyze the Zapruder video.
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: NVFOA_Ump on October 24, 2012, 10:50:40 AM
Just compare the stop action views at 7 secs (the time of the one-handed push in the back) with the EZ view at 20 secs (virtually the same time as the push is occurring).  IMO there is no way we can say that the coverage man could not have avoided the the kick receiver without interfering with him if he was not blocked in the back.
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: SD_Casey on October 25, 2012, 10:54:16 PM
I agree with those who said KCI with no IBB.
Title: Re: KCI ?
Post by: Aussie-Zebra on October 28, 2012, 12:44:35 PM
My call is No KCI - was blocked into receiver IBB  ^flag

I liked the Zapruder reference Mike - they still feeling guilty about that in Dallas ?