RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: Bob M. on January 02, 2013, 11:07:17 AM
-
Sorry I don't have a video, but in last evening's Rose Bowl, Stanford was penalized for late contact with the Wisconsin kicker. Referee (McGinn) called it 'running,' but it sure as heck looked like it could (should?) have been called 'roughing.' Did anyone else see that?
I'm sure the Refstripes' Director of Media Retrieval (TxMike) could provide the 'evidence' if we asked him nicely.
-
The chatroom exploded when that happened. It was hard to make out who was saying what on the broadcast but it sounded like even the Big East coordinator of officials said it was roughing.
There was some discussion about going with running into when you think the guy would have hit the punter anyway but the blocker caused the contact to be of the roughing variety. I don't think that is appropriate. If you deem the block caused the defender to hit the kicker, there is no foul for hitting the kicker. I supppose it is possible the defender might do something in addition to running into the kicker that you judge is a PF, but if so, just go with the PF and still disreagrd the running/roughing.
The video will be here when it finishes uploading:
http://youtu.be/tBzcsRe5k9Q
-
Obvious roughing. Muffburger was right (for once).
-
Obvious roughing. Muffburger was right (for once).
Didn't the color guy suggest this? Just trying to preserve your low opinion of Brent. :)
-
Tuesday was a tough day for the Big East. First the First Down debacle and then this. Two pretty obvious errors.
-
It was wholly inappropriate for McCauley to publicly criticize McGinn on national TV
-
McAuley was in the booth with Musberger, and I did hear Musberger suggest to McAuley it was roughing. I don't recall McAuley responding. Did he really blast McGinn on the air?
-
The audio is confusing Not sure if he actually responded on air or he shook his head or somehow indicated to Muffberger he agreed
-
He didn't criticize the call. He said it looked like roughing to him. That's it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Personally, I was surprised when it was only ruled running into.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
-
I think you were in the majority
-
My first thoughts and they remain so, is that even though the Team R player was blocked - it was not in the direction of the kicker and that he managed to contact the kicker anyway.
Most definitely Roughing.
-
It made the 2013 Preseason CFO video. RR says roughing
-
So did "that" 1st down call
-
9-1-16-a-5. When a defensive player’s contact against the kicker or holder is caused
by an opponent’s block (legal or illegal), there is no foul for running into
or roughing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GluywnyzSJ0&feature=youtu.be
-
What is your point? The block did not force the defender into the kicker. If anything, the defender overpowered the force of the block
-
My point...? Exactly..! I think the block forced the defender into the kicker,, Just watch the language body of the defender
-
Well if that is what you "saw" then it is no foul. Nothing wrong with being in the minority. Sometimes they are right. If Rogers Redding was your supervisor you would get a INC though on this play.
-
I can see where your coming from Rostrom.
As R15 gets past blocker K74, it looks like K74 is pushing R15 into the kicker however this is not the case as R15 was clear by that time. ^flag
http://youtu.be/u2GPbSAmWOg