ACC Championship Offside Call

[Just4Kicks]

NCAA rules, RULE 6, Section 1, Article 2.c.5:

All players of Team A must have been between the nine-yard marks
after the ready-for-play signal [S19].

Take another look at the video, only don't make the mistake others have made in considering it a violation of the 4-men-per-side rule, which draws everyone's attention away from the actual infraction by focusing attention on the upper part of the screen. Instead, focus on the lower part of the screen, and you will see that the closest player to the near side of the field in the video is lined up outside the hash marks, in violation of this rule.

Now I'm no expert on what the call technically should be for this violation, i.e., whether that is still called an offsides infraction, or perhaps illegal formation or something else. But the official got it right, he was looking right at him when he threw the flag. At worst, he would be guilty of calling it by the wrong name, not making a bad call.

But I'm guessing that the call would still be offside rather than illegal formation, because the infraction is basically the same thing that happens with the normal offside call, it simply involves being offside in regard to the width of the field rather than the length.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Just4Kicks

NCAA rules, RULE 6, Section 1, Article 2.c.5:

All players of Team A must have been between the nine-yard marks
after the ready-for-play signal [S19].

Take another look at the video, only don't make the mistake others have made in considering it a violation of the 4-men-per-side rule, which draws everyone's attention away from the actual infraction by focusing attention on the upper part of the screen. Instead, focus on the lower part of the screen, and you will see that the closest player to the near side of the field in the video is lined up outside the hash marks, in violation of this rule.

Now I'm no expert on what the call technically should be for this violation, i.e., whether that is still called an offsides infraction, or perhaps illegal formation or something else. But the official got it right, he was looking right at him when he threw the flag. At worst, he would be guilty of calling it by the wrong name, not making a bad call.

Except that's not what he was calling -- articles have clearly said what was called and why.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

Except that's not what he was calling -- articles have clearly said what was called and why.

Holy cow, is it possible an "article" may actually have gotten details WRONG?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Holy cow, is it possible an "article" may actually have gotten details WRONG?

I am starting to wonder the same thing as the media often goes off and tangents about things with rules when they clearly do not have all the details or never seem to talk to people that would know.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Holy cow, is it possible an "article" may actually have gotten details WRONG?

No.

"Offsides is not a reviewable play,” the ACC said in a statement. “The officiating team saw a member of the kicking team break the plane (of the 35-yard line) before the ball was kicked.”

Why don't you stop thinking that officials can't make mistakes? It ruins our credibility. Sometimes you just have to look in the mirror and say, "I made a mistake."

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

No.
Why don't you stop thinking that officials can't make mistakes? It ruins our credibility. Sometimes you just have to look in the mirror and say, "I made a mistake."

Having YET to meet any official who has actually worked a perfect game, I'm well aware officials make mistakes. Having made far too many myself, I've also learned that "perfection" is an absolute delusion.

I'm very much interested in any "constructive" criticism offered regarding an official making a mistake, that might have some (any) value in helping that official, or any one of us, from making the same mistake.

What I'm uncomfortable with is people with no idea what they're talking about lecturing others about doing a difficult job to try and make themselves sound smarter, or those who actually may know better demeaning someone who may have made a mistake, to try and polish their own halos.

Those of us who actually do, what we do, should understand all about the difference between real time at ground level inside the eye of a hurricane and repeated slow motion, stop action reviews of a play from the comfort of an easy chair, and should offer their critiques either constructively, or not at all.

[Just4Kicks]

Originally Posted by Rich

No.

"Offsides is not a reviewable play,” the ACC said in a statement. “The officiating team saw a member of the kicking team break the plane (of the 35-yard line) before the ball was kicked.”

And one did. There are two planes that cannot be broken on the kickoff, one is the 35-yard-line (which the statement does not specify), the other is the 9-yard hash mark. The UNC player closest to the ref who threw the flag clearly broke that plane. That being the case, the play should come back--and since it did, no problem--except with the sore losers who think that the call somehow equates to "being robbed," even though the TD (not to mention a 2-point conversion try, one of which had already failed earlier) would have somehow been an automatic UNC win. It's doubtful they would even have scored, and even more doubtful the 2-pointer would work, and even more doubtful they would have won the game after that.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Just4Kicks

And one did. There are two planes that cannot be broken on the kickoff, one is the 35-yard-line (which the statement does not specify), the other is the 9-yard hash mark. The UNC player closest to the ref who threw the flag clearly broke that plane. That being the case, the play should come back--and since it did, no problem--except with the sore losers who think that the call somehow equates to "being robbed," even though the TD (not to mention a 2-point conversion try, one of which had already failed earlier) would have somehow been an automatic UNC win. It's doubtful they would even have scored, and even more doubtful the 2-pointer would work, and even more doubtful they would have won the game after that.

Not a football guy. Didn't the UNC coach indicate that a ref said there were three players that he could indicate as offside. Would that suggest the 35 yard line?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Not a football guy. Didn't the UNC coach indicate that a ref said there were three players that he could indicate as offside. Would that suggest the 35 yard line?

The ACC has acknowledged that the call was for offside at the 35 yard line, not a 9 yard mark infraction.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

What I'm uncomfortable with is people with no idea what they're talking about...

You mean people saying things like "Holy cow, is it possible an "article" may actually have gotten details WRONG?" as opposed to researching the situation to learn the the conference has acknowledged what the call was?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Just4Kicks

And one did. There are two planes that cannot be broken on the kickoff, one is the 35-yard-line (which the statement does not specify), the other is the 9-yard hash mark. The UNC player closest to the ref who threw the flag clearly broke that plane. That being the case, the play should come back--and since it did, no problem--except with the sore losers who think that the call somehow equates to "being robbed," even though the TD (not to mention a 2-point conversion try, one of which had already failed earlier) would have somehow been an automatic UNC win. It's doubtful they would even have scored, and even more doubtful the 2-pointer would work, and even more doubtful they would have won the game after that.

That's the weakest argument I've seen on this forum in a long time. Please don't jam some rule technicality down our throat as a defense for a flag that shouldn't have been thrown.

No, it didn't cost them the game but it did cost them an opportunity. And on national TV with millions watching, such an simple mistake that shouldn't have been made reflects negatively on officiating.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Just4Kicks

And one did. There are two planes that cannot be broken on the kickoff, one is the 35-yard-line (which the statement does not specify), the other is the 9-yard hash mark. The UNC player closest to the ref who threw the flag clearly broke that plane. That being the case, the play should come back--and since it did, no problem--except with the sore losers who think that the call somehow equates to "being robbed," even though the TD (not to mention a 2-point conversion try, one of which had already failed earlier) would have somehow been an automatic UNC win. It's doubtful they would even have scored, and even more doubtful the 2-pointer would work, and even more doubtful they would have won the game after that.

I like how you talk to me like I've never officiated a football game. I have (unlike you).

I have been on the kicker's line in an NCAA football game, so I actually know the rule and, more importantly, the spirit of it. That foul wouldn't get called in this situation in a million years and wasn't what the official threw the flag for in this instance, either.

That rule is to prevent a player from hiding out on the sideline or using a substitution to hide out on the field. If those players are clearly on the field, they aren't calling it. Ever.

[Just4Kicks]

Originally Posted by Rich

I like how you talk to me like I've never officiated a football game. I have (unlike you).

I have been on the kicker's line in an NCAA football game, so I actually know the rule and, more importantly, the spirit of it. That foul wouldn't get called in this situation in a million years and wasn't what the official threw the flag for in this instance, either.

That rule is to prevent a player from hiding out on the sideline or using a substitution to hide out on the field. If those players are clearly on the field, they aren't calling it. Ever.

I like the way you talk to me as though I will just concede to your personal authority just because you declare yourself to be so. "They aren't calling it. ever."

But your declaration is not true. Fact is, it gets called all the time. I'm not the only one who saw it either. Here's a description of the same thing

https://www.tigernet.com/forums/mess...ageID=18492748

and in the comments here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moqJFO6o_fM