BGSU vs UNI onside kick

[CenTexTM]

Team A kicks, and right around the time the ball is crossing the 45 yard line a player from Team A executes what appears to be a legal block.  The WH announces two fouls on the play: offsides, a 5 yard penalty, and illegal block because they blocked before the ball went 10 yards, a 10 yard penalty.  He gave the PF illegal block signal rather than the illegal procedure signal.  I didn't see any indication of an illegal block (well above the waist and not to the head), although it certainly looked like KCI under the new exception where the ball bounces off the ground immediately.  The R then came back and corrected himself an announced that the penalty was 15 yards, not 10. 

I understand this turn of events not at all.  It looks like the penalty should have been KCI, and if you did not call KCI, then the penalty should have been 5 yards.  Am I missing something?

The foul was at 11:22 remaining in the 2nd, for those inclined to find video.

[Etref]

Kicking team may not block a return team member until kicking team is eligible to legally touch the ball (goes ten yards or touched by a receiving team player).

This usually occurs on on side kicks to allow a kicking team member an opportunity to get the ball.

[RTBackJudge]

I just watched this play also on my DVR.   I believe it was administered incorrectly because the foul was call incorrectly. Also the Rules expert the telecast is using described the play incorrectly.  The foul should have been KCI, not illegal block, like you said. Team A cannot block a Team B player in position to receive a legal kick, a foul which gives Team B the ball with a 15 yard penalty. The crew called the foul for Team A blocking before they could legally touch the ball. That was incorrect because the ball had traveled about 15 yards before the block. In the end, team A was only penalized the 5 yards for being offside.

[JasonTX]

I just watched this play also on my DVR.   I believe it was administered incorrectly because the foul was call incorrectly. Also the Rules expert the telecast is using described the play incorrectly.  The foul should have been KCI, not illegal block, like you said. Team A cannot block a Team B player in position to receive a legal kick, a foul which gives Team B the ball with a 15 yard penalty. The crew called the foul for Team A blocking before they could legally touch the ball. That was incorrect because the ball had traveled about 15 yards before the block. In the end, team A was only penalized the 5 yards for being offside.

Or someone on the crew realized that the penalty for the illegal block is only 5 yards.  I do agree that the ball had traveled 15 yards though.   Without DVR here, where was the ball in relation to the player that got blocked.  I thought that player that got blocked was not in a position to receive the ball.  Also, how many times did the ball hit the ground.  Maybe someone can put the video on here.

[CenTexTM]

The ball only hit once, immediately after being kicked.  I can much more understand the referee having a brain fart and describing it as a 10 yard penalty and then incorrectly correcting himself to a 15 yard penalty than I can understand an FBS crew of 7 chosen for a conference championship game missing this altogether.  IIRC, the ball was approximately 3 yards upfield of the potential receiver and high in the air when he was blocked.  It looked like he was getting set up to receive the kick and was not allowed an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick; in real time, it certainly looked to me like KCI.

[fencewire]

Ball was driven immediately into the ground and popped up high. 

OFK, declined..
KCI, 15 yards from the spot of the foul, 1st & 10, team B.

As mentioned, the blocking before eligible is only a 5 yard penalty.

[TXMike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmAIq4i7RHA

I know they were not expecting an onside kick but ?  ?  ?  ?    And then Cutaia ignoring the KCI also ? ? .

Gonna be dejavu all over again for him. I know the rule was a bit different back then but remember this one from 2006? :

http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2597908

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIn1mNmgDjc

[TxSkyBolt]

No OFK and the network needs a new rules "expert"

[Rulesman]

No OFK and the network needs a new rules "expert"

Isn't that same "expert" posting on Twitter under what was RRs account at one time?

[bossman72]

Several errors:

1)  This was KCI
2)  Illegal block is a 5 yard penalty (rolling fists signal)
3)  This should be BGSU ball

[Diablo]

One of the announcers nailed the call at 0:50 on the video.  He should have Cutaia's gig.

[NVFOA_Ump]

My read of this play:

1.  The only kicking team player "offside" was the kicker himself and he's an exception to the rule.  Tough call when looking down the line for feet over the line when there's 5 players between you and the ball, but we have to get this right.

2.  Watching wing official who had an immediate flag for an Illegal Block, IMO he made a judgment call that the contact occurred while the ball was high in the air around the 45 yard line and while he was watching the ball he saw the block on his right.  Not sure that I want to question that - it's a pure judgement call.

3.  The penalty enforcement for the "Illegal Block" was correct.  5 yards from the previous spot and re-kick since team B did not have possession of the ball at the end of the play.

4.  The big miss here was obviously the KCI, since the debatable "Illegal Block" was also KCI based on the clear wording of the new (2013) Rule 6-4-1-f.  The result should have been team B's ball, 1st and 10, with the 15 yard penalty enforced at the spot of the foul.

Maybe the crew doesn't keep up with the rules changes?

[TXMike]

This is not a Mass or Tx HS crew.   It is a major college crew.   I doubt keeping up with the changes is the issue.  I am leaning towards "blinders".   Situation where there is so much happening that you have to process that you complety "do not see" an obvious issue.   In law enforcement critical stress response studies they have found tunnel vision and tunnel thinking by many folks in high stress situations.  Maybe that is what happened

[RunRickyRun]

This is not a Mass or Tx HS crew.   It is a major college crew.   I doubt keeping up with the changes is the issue.  I am leaning towards "blinders".   Situation where there is so much happening that you have to process that you complety "do not see" an obvious issue.   In law enforcement critical stress response studies they have found tunnel vision and tunnel thinking by many folks in high stress situations.  Maybe that is what happened

This bring up a question that has always intrigued me.  In a situation like this, is it better to have more input from more officials - some that may only be able help with interpretations and have no first-hand knowledge of what just happenned?  Or is it best that only the officials with an eyeball on the action be involved?

Edit: I understand that any official should weigh-in if one observes an error.  I am referring to the discussion prior to the enforcement.

[Fatman325]

Ricky Communication from more officials is not bad until it clouds the issue instead of clearing it up. More officials listening to the descriptions isn't a bad thing as long as we aren't huddled all the time. Once the descriptions have been discussed then is the time for questioning the covering officials. Being very specific in terms of what we are communicating here is essential. Stick with terms that are relevant, concise and complete.
One can never see too many onside kicks.

[Magician]

I agree on the KCI miss.  It probably got lost in all the other things they were discussing at that point.  It happens.  It's not excusable and still deserves the downgrade, but it happens.

I agree with the OFK.  Onside kicks are to treat the line as a plane and there are at least two players (other than the kicker) beyond that plane when the ball is kicked.

This is a great training video for next year.