Ineligible Downfield - Rose Bowl

[TXMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdqjImvKETU

Was discussed in chatroom yesterday.  Thoughts?

[Wingmanbp]

98 Was the only one I saw that wasn't eligible. And if he was downfield it was only by a yard or two when the pass was thrown. I didn't understand it yesterday when they called it I figured maybe he saw the 90's numbers and just thought they had to be downfield

[Morningrise]

When I saw it, my first thought was that someone ineligible would surely run downfield. Especially since there are three receivers looking out for the pass and the kicker isn't one of them. But the extra guy is eligible 93 from the far side. The replay shows no one else more than 0-1 yards downfield when the pass is thrown - though it pans away from some ineligibles who are about to take one more step before the pass.

Did I hear no number in the announcement? The crowd noise drowned it out.

[TXMike]

Many crews have their own schemes and plans for the scrimmage kick numbering nightmares and how they are going to be ready for it when the play breaks down.  While they may differ in methodology , all I have heard require some crew discussion after the play to verify who was deemed ineligible was truly ineligible.  Did not see that discussion here but perhaps they handle it differently. 

The absence of a number during the announcement could mean that the fouling player was on the far side of the field and the L was unable to pick it up, or there was so much going on on his own side of the field, he did not mentally note it, or he was not sure but just "knew" someone was downfield illegally. Although Team A ended up kicking the FG on the replay of down, this penalty did erase a 1st down that would have kept the drive for a TD alive.  We can argue all day long about how "unfair" that would have been, i.e. Team A screws up the FG attempt but ends up getting a 1st down, but that is the way the prolated spheroid bounces.

[Rulesman]

Eliminate the numbering exception and you reduce the chances of this happening. But good luck getting the numbering exception changed.

[clearwall]

Who was ineligible? I've got 86 as a back(eligible), 99 as the end(eligible) and 93 on the other side as a back(eligible). No one else was downfield that I saw.

[Magician]

From what I can tell the slot backs were 93 (caught the ball) and 85 (downfield in front of the receiver) and they are OK.  The ends were 94 (can't see him as the play develops) and 99 (downfield in front of the receiver).  The interior linemen were 46, 67, 98, 74, and 76.  The only one you see as the play develops is 98, but it appears he's staying back.  He may be at the 15/16 when the ball is thrown, but he's OK within 3 yards of the LOS (17).

Based on what I can see on this video nobody was downfield but there are 4 guys who could be guilty that we don't see.  The L did a good job staying on the LOS and officiating the play so I trust his call.  He needs to have a number though if he's going to flag this and the U should be able to verify who the interior linemen are if he did his job in pregame.

[busman]

Could 99 have been ruled covered by 93? Is this the old ruling that 93 is "no man's land"?

[bkdow]

How can a Rose Bowl only have 3 camera angles on this play? 

[NVFOA_Ump]

From what I can tell the slot backs were 93 (caught the ball) and 85 (downfield in front of the receiver) and they are OK.  The ends were 94 (can't see him as the play develops) and 99 (downfield in front of the receiver).  The interior linemen were 46, 67, 98, 74, and 76.  The only one you see as the play develops is 98, but it appears he's staying back.  He may be at the 15/16 when the ball is thrown, but he's OK within 3 yards of the LOS (17).

Based on what I can see on this video nobody was downfield but there are 4 guys who could be guilty that we don't see.  The L did a good job staying on the LOS and officiating the play so I trust his call.  He needs to have a number though if he's going to flag this and the U should be able to verify who the interior linemen are if he did his job in pregame.

I watched this yesterday and did note that the back side ineligibles are not visible in any of the replays that were shown as we can see on the posted clip.  Also, although for stats purposes the LOS was the 17, the box was just a few inches inside the 18.  So the expanded NZ would go to just inside the 15.

As noted we can see the L pretty much locked in on the LOS and he takes a good look before throwing his flag.  Certainly possible that he flagged 99 from the far side who as noted was legal, but I'm guessing he had one of the interior linemen that we can't see in any of the clips and the one we can partly see before the pass is thrown (#98) has started heading downfield and IMO would be really close when the ball is thrown.  When #98 is visible again he's between the 13 & 14 just about as the ball is being caught.  Can't really tell where he was when the ball was thrown.

[Rulesman]

...the one we can partly see before the pass is thrown (#98) has started heading downfield and IMO would be really close when the ball is thrown.  When #98 is visible again he's between the 13 & 14 just about as the ball is being caught.  Can't really tell where he was when the ball was thrown.

Agree. If anyone is "suspect" it is #98.

[TXMike]

1:08-1:09 (and same footage slowed down at 1:55-1:56).  98 was on north side of the 15 when ball released

[BoBo]

Botched FG and i think we have a botched Illegal Man Downfield. Ooops

[Diablo]

Could 99 have been ruled covered by 93? Is this the old ruling that 93 is "no man's land"?

Looks like A93 - lined up outside the left tackle (A?4) - is not meeting the criteria for being a lineman nor a back.  If true, that's a foul in itself and A93 would be ineligible.

[NVFOA_Ump]

1:08-1:09 (and same footage slowed down at 1:55-1:56).  98 was on north side of the 15 when ball released

Too close to call from the angle in the video IMO.  98 is actually ahead of 93 and moving downfield in parallel with him and the ball is still in the QB's hand in his backward motion before release.  Then we lose 98 off camera.

Looks like A93 - lined up outside the left tackle (A?4) - is not meeting the criteria for being a lineman nor a back.  If true, that's a foul in itself and A93 would be ineligible.

Also a definite possibility but again tough to say given the camera angles that we've seen.

Given the way the L stayed with this the whole way, and flagged it just after the ball was released I've got to go with the call unless there is a clear video showing otherwise.  Sure would have helped if we got a number in the announcement though.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[todd.gundlach@norwoodligh]

As U I am always challenging my mind with numbering exceptions. I make patterns out of the numbers if I can, like #33 & #44 - two double numbers as ineligibles, also like #20 and #30, both ending in zero, etc. I can usually remember 4 numbers pretty easy. Plus you typically see the same formations, so you should recognize the patterns. I also as R to remember the snapper number if there are 5 or 6 ineligilbe numbers, and we challenge each other and ask some time after the play what was the number of the snapper, etc.

[bossman72]

Too close to call from the angle in the video IMO.  98 is actually ahead of 93 and moving downfield in parallel with him and the ball is still in the QB's hand in his backward motion before release.  Then we lose 98 off camera.


Also a definite possibility but again tough to say given the camera angles that we've seen.

Given the way the L stayed with this the whole way, and flagged it just after the ball was released I've got to go with the call unless there is a clear video showing otherwise.  Sure would have helped if we got a number in the announcement though.

In your picture, what was the original LOS yard line?

[Sonofanump]

Looks like 17.  TV says 34 yard attempt, so that would be standard.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Actual LOS just inside the 18.  In the still 98 & 93 are approaching the 15 (the edge of the extended NZ) and the pass is not gone yet. 

[Kalle]

Actual LOS just inside the 18.  In the still 98 & 93 are approaching the 15 (the edge of the extended NZ) and the pass is not gone yet.

Considering that the snapper is fully inside the 18 I very much doubt that the ball was snapped from further than 17. See 1:01 for a good look at the line formation. Also the box score says 17. Any video from the previous play showing the dead ball spot?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Box is visible in clip and is very close to the 18. Stats list next yard line (17).

[Magician]

Actual LOS just inside the 18.  In the still 98 & 93 are approaching the 15 (the edge of the extended NZ) and the pass is not gone yet. 

Still perfectly legal.  They have 3 yards so they could be beyond the 15 and be OK.  This is also not something you nit.  In order to call this those guys should be at the 14 or beyond.  Either the L confused one of these guys for being an ineligible player or there is someone off the screen who is well beyond.  My guess is the latter.

[Kalle]

there is someone off the screen who is well beyond.

Wouldn't that be either the U's or the H's call, not L's?

[Magician]

Wouldn't that be either the U's or the H's call, not L's?

In 7-man the L is primary on the LOS.  The H will drift on a pass read and the U secondarily comes up to help on the LOS but he is not primary unlike 5-man.