South Carolina vs. LSU Fake Punt

[Imperial Stout]

This would be a good one for Shaw to go over in his video on Thursday. We will see if he takes it up.

[Etref]

“…mimeograph…”
Now you’re showing your gray hair. And, by recognizing that term, so am I.

I resemble that remark!

[ElvisLives]

This would be a good one for Shaw to go over in his video on Thursday. We will see if he takes it up.

I’ll go on record as predicting he’ll find fault with the officiating, and make no mention of the coaching failures.

[zebrastripes]

I’ll go on record saying he won’t go over it because with rare exception, he doesn’t seem to talk about plays that have rules or mechanics misses / opportunities for improvement. I will say he has picked plays that were officiated incorrectly a couple times this year (Oklahoma hideout play, WVU penalty enforcement at the end of the half), so I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m wrong.

[ElvisLives]

Nothing on the LSU/SC late sub. Disappointing, but not surprising. But, he does review some plays where he makes the point that certain actions are fouls, but it doesn’t look like those fouls were called on those plays. I actually think it is good to not embarrass folks. We ALL make mistakes.

[zebrastripes]

Nothing on the LSU/SC late sub. Disappointing, but not surprising. But, he does review some plays where he makes the point that certain actions are fouls, but it doesn’t look like those fouls were called on those plays. I actually think it is good to not embarrass folks. We ALL make mistakes.

I was pleased to see him support the UNS on the IU coach in play #7 (even implying that the wing waited too long to throw the flag). And acknowledge that even though there was a missed DPI, the coach needed to be penalized.

[ElvisLives]

I was pleased to see him support the UNS on the IU coach in play #7 (even implying that the wing waited too long to throw the flag). And acknowledge that even though there was a missed DPI, the coach needed to be penalized.

[ElvisLives]

A fellow official asked about the legality of SC's formation. I was so focused on the substitution issue that I simply overlooked the fact that they were in a sort of "swinging gate" formation. That has no effect on the substitution issue, but it does affect mandatory numbering. In other videos, Shaw has declared similar "swinging gate" formations as not being formations that make it "obvious a scrimmage kick will be made;" therefore, they are not scrimmage kick formations, by definition. So, a team using such a formation must comply with mandatory numbering (i.e., at least 5 linemen numbered 50-79).
Uh, guess what? I don't believe SC had mandatory numbering. With the given camera view, it is very hard to see, but as the players spread out after the ball was passed back to the apparent punter, the numbers of the linemen in the cluster near their own sideline do NOT appear to be 50-79. So, even without the substitution issue, the down 'should' have been flagged for an illegal formation, anyway.

After the substitution penalty, SC used a 'normal' punt formation, so mandatory numbering was not an issue.

We have to be on our toes.

[Birddog]

A fellow official asked about the legality of SC's formation. I was so focused on the substitution issue that I simply overlooked the fact that they were in a sort of "swinging gate" formation. That has no effect on the substitution issue, but it does affect mandatory numbering. In other videos, Shaw has declared similar "swinging gate" formations as not being formations that make it "obvious a scrimmage kick will be made;" therefore, they are not scrimmage kick formations, by definition. So, a team using such a formation must comply with mandatory numbering (i.e., at least 5 linemen numbered 50-79).
Uh, guess what? I don't believe SC had mandatory numbering. With the given camera view, it is very hard to see, but as the players spread out after the ball was passed back to the apparent punter, the numbers of the linemen in the cluster near their own sideline do NOT appear to be 50-79. So, even without the substitution issue, the down 'should' have been flagged for an illegal formation, anyway.

After the substitution penalty, SC used a 'normal' punt formation, so mandatory numbering was not an issue.

We have to be on our toes.

So we can conclude that from this formation it is "obvious a kick will be made" since Shaw did not say anything about the formation?  They defiantly did use the numbering exception.  Based on his previous comments about legality of SK formaions with the swinging gate and reading AR 7-1-4-VII and VIII it can be tricky to determine when a kick is obvous.   

[ElvisLives]

So we can conclude that from this formation it is "obvious a kick will be made" since Shaw did not say anything about the formation?  They defiantly did use the numbering exception.  Based on his previous comments about legality of SK formaions with the swinging gate and reading AR 7-1-4-VII and VIII it can be tricky to determine when a kick is obvous.

Since he didn't review this down, there is no conclusion to be made at all regarding formation, or anything else, from that down. His review of at least one previous swinging gate formation made clear that such a formation was not obvious that a kick would be made, therefore, it was not a scrimmage kick formation, and mandatory numbering remains in effect. With that, until, and unless, Shaw revises his opinion of swinging gate formations, IMHO, we treat them all as non-SKFs. My observations are made on that premise.

[copedaddy]

My students love the smell of that paper. A mini high. LoL