Free kick returner does not know the rule

[JRutledge]

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Peace

I think you could make a case for the 8-5-1 EXCEPTION here.

He recovered a kick inside the 5-yard line while moving in the direction of his endzone and the ball was declared dead in the endzone.

I think you'd get support for 1/10 from the 3.

[JRutledge]

Interesting position. I did not think of this position or possibility.

But I think he did take the ball into the EZ under control. I think the NCAA supported this call and even talked about the mechanic of the official signaling a touchback first and then quickly to a safety signal.

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Didn't see this play on the COC video, but maybe someone is supporting it somewhere. It'll be interesting to see if it makes the CFO training tape. You know as well as I do that public support does not always equal how coordinators feel about specific plays.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Interesting position. I did not think of this position or possibility.

But I think he did take the ball into the EZ under control. I think the NCAA supported this call and even talked about the mechanic of the official signaling a touchback first and then quickly to a safety signal.

Peace

Looks to me (from the EZ view) that the official gave a "start the clock" wind before signaling safety, not a TB signal.

I could argue either side of the MX vs safety issue. It's probably MX by strict definition, but it looks like the player intentionally took it into the EZ in an attempt to get a touchback.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Looks to me (from the EZ view) that the official gave a "start the clock" wind before signaling safety, not a TB signal.

I could argue either side of the MX vs safety issue. It's probably MX by strict definition, but it looks like the player intentionally took it into the EZ in an attempt to get a touchback.

I do think he was at all using his momentum. I think he clearly took the ball into the EZ on his own. Now that being said that does not mean it could not be a possible consideration in this kind of play, but I think that was clearly not the case.

And I can accept the position that he was not giving a TB signal. I think he did look kind of unsure with his signal or what he wanted to do. It was clear he was trying to process the play, but that is not that big of a deal. The player did something stupid and you do not expect that to happen. Either way, the call was gotten correct.

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do think he was at all using his momentum. I think he clearly took the ball into the EZ on his own. Now that being said that does not mean it could not be a possible consideration in this kind of play, but I think that was clearly not the case.

And I can accept the position that he was not giving a TB signal. I think he did look kind of unsure with his signal or what he wanted to do. It was clear he was trying to process the play, but that is not that big of a deal. The player did something stupid and you do not expect that to happen. Either way, the call was gotten correct.

Peace

In another forum, Gary Arthur has stated he wants this rules as momentum.

[bigjohn]

The kid should have let the ball go and cross the GL on its own. No doubt. His momentum did carry him into the EZ without a doubt. It would have been very difficult for him to stop, he was running toward his own GL. His play was very poor technique but that doesn't negate Momentum Rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

The kid should have let the ball go and cross the GL on its own. No doubt. His momentum did carry him into the EZ without a doubt. It would have been very difficult for him to stop, he was running toward his own GL. His play was very poor technique but that doesn't negate Momentum Rule.

I disagree that his momentum took him into the EZ. He was under control and even walked back into the EZ. He even turned around to look at where everyone was located.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

In another forum, Gary Arthur has stated he wants this rules as momentum.

Well, they did replay for this as well and the replay backed it up. This was discussed the following week in a meeting I attended and everyone felt (guys that work D1) seemed to like the call.

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well, they did replay for this as well and the replay backed it up. This was discussed the following week in a meeting I attended and everyone felt (guys that work D1) seemed to like the call.

Peace

Replay didn't "back anything up".

You (should) know that replay can't weigh in on whether or not a player took the ball into the end zone on his own or was the player took the ball into the end zone due to momentum. (Page 30 of the IRCB) In case you lost your IR casebook:

• A player taking a ball into the end zone on his own versus going in due to momentum is not reviewable.
• Replay cannot rule on “intention.” Can only rule on location of the ball in relation to the goal line.
• Replay cannot change the ruling of a safety to momentum, or change the ruling of momentum to a safety.


The guy that grades/coaches those DI LOS guys at your meeting, the guys that are are responsible for making these calls, has made his position known. Do whatever you want...