« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Foul ?  (Read 12221 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Foul ?
« on: June 29, 2012, 04:28:56 AM »
Logged

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2012, 06:44:09 AM »
At the time, no.

This year, yes.
Logged

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2012, 06:48:43 AM »
I believe this will now be a foul. If he does this BETWEEN players it is OK but if he goes over it is a foul.
Logged

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2012, 07:12:56 AM »
Perhaps this play will show up on a CFO video, but it certainly looks to me like this is the textbook "between" players, not directly over a player. The blocker on the left moves under the leaper after the leaper has jumped  and committed himself. With the other leaping rule, when an opponent moves under the leaper after he has jumped, no foul. I would expect this to be the same.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2012, 12:25:37 PM by El Macman »
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2012, 07:35:52 AM »
Quote from: El Macman on June 29, 2012, 07:12:56 AM
Perhaps this play will show up on a CFO video, but it certainly looks to me like this is the textbook "between" players, not directly over a player. The blocker on the left moves under the leaper after the leaper has jumped  and committed himself. With the other leaping rule, when an opponent moves under the leaper after he has jumped, no foul. I would expect this to be the same.

Based on what I know today, no foul.

This is the issue I was hoping to generate conversation on with this clip.  What to do when we judge the reason the "leaper" went over the "shield" was because of the shield's actions.  I hope for consistency sake we are able to rule on it as we do on "leaping"
Logged

Offline Hondo

  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Foul ?
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2012, 07:38:24 AM »
Foul. The leaper starts out in a very little gap but his jump is at an angle towards the kicker and he lands on the middle blocker.
Logged

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 2007
  • FAN REACTION: +45/-46
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2012, 11:00:49 AM »
No foul, in the gap..not even much of a leap.  This is not a safety issue which is was was trying to be addressed.  I hope we don't over officiate this. I also highly question the fact that he "...attempt to leap directly over an opponent." which is an element of the crime which must be proven.
Logged

Offline Hondo

  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2012, 11:40:03 AM »
attached a picture.  Still see no gap, OK maybe a 2 inch gap between 44&53. 

[attachment deleted by admin]
Logged

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2012, 12:26:59 PM »
Perhaps this play will show up on a CFO video, but it certainly looks to me like this is the textbook "between" players, not directly over a player. The blocker on the left moves under the leaper after the leaper has jumped  and committed himself. With the other leaping rule, when an opponent moves under the leaper after he has jumped, no foul. I would expect this to be the same.

Based on what I know now - foul. They want this dangerous play removed from college football.
Logged

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2012, 04:25:17 PM »
Quote from: TxSkyBolt on June 29, 2012, 11:00:49 AM
This is not a safety issue which is was was trying to be addressed.

D@mn sure is a safety issue!  Dangerous for the player he is going over, extremely dangerous for the player going over.

This is the exact type of play that the rule change was meant to prevent.  They added a "gap" exception in order to eliminate a foul when there is NO player being leapt.  A few inches or even a foot between players is not a "gap". 

"The Football Rules Committee raised concern about this type of action and proposed a rule similar to the leaping rule on place kicks that does not allow the receiving team to jump over blockers, unless the player jumps straight up or between two players."

Obviously, this wasn't straight up.  And since there was no way for him to fit between the two players, by definition, he had to be going over one of them.

 ^flag
Logged

Offline RedTD

  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-2
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2012, 07:14:14 AM »
When will we see the rule that makes it illegal for a ball carrier to "leap" over the defensive line at the goal line? hEaDbAnG
Logged

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2012, 07:33:31 AM »
Quote from: RedTD on June 30, 2012, 07:14:14 AM
When will we see the rule that makes it illegal for a ball carrier to "leap" over the defensive line at the goal line? hEaDbAnG
+1 :sTiR:
Logged
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

ABoselli

  • Guest
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2012, 07:41:00 AM »
If the R (who will be getting this potential foul) is standing outside 7 to 10 yards and slightly behind or in front of where the punt will happen, there's no way he'll be able to see gap vs. straight on when the personal protectors are bunched like that. Asking him to differentiate on something like that would be unreasonable. Foul.
Logged

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2012, 01:30:58 PM »
Quote from: ABoselli on July 03, 2012, 07:41:00 AM
If the R (who will be getting this potential foul) is standing outside 7 to 10 yards and slightly behind or in front of where the punt will happen, there's no way he'll be able to see gap vs. straight on when the personal protectors are bunched like that. Asking him to differentiate on something like that would be unreasonable. Foul.

Although I have no supporting statistics, I believe most FBS Rs have adopted a postion of some 5-7 yards behind and 5-7 yards wide of the punter. That angle allows the R see in advance of the punter without much difficulty. Seeing the 'leaping' action won't be too difficult. But judging "over" versus "between" without pre-season guidance video will be a bit of a crap-shoot. At least one FBS coordinator says the Sugar Bowl 'shield leap' will be a foul in 2012, even though the leaper doesn't go straight over the top of anybody. Hopefully, the Rs will be supported on anything marginal, and this type of action will simply disappear, and it will become a non-issue.
Logged

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2012, 02:43:21 PM »
Maybe you could think of the shield as an invisible wall - end-to-end... try to climb over any part of the wall and be subject to one of these:  ^flag
Logged
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: Foul ?
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2012, 03:01:39 PM »
Quote from: Rulesman on July 03, 2012, 02:43:21 PM
Maybe you could think of the shield as an invisible wall - end-to-end... try to climb over any part of the wall and be subject to one of these:  ^flag


That would be too easy. FBS Rs don't get paid for 'easy,' do they?  :D
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »