The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 07, 2017, 06:35pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 27,156
Free kick returner does not know the rule



Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 07, 2017, 06:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lindenhurst, IL
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post


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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 07, 2017, 08:00pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 27,156
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 07, 2017, 08:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lindenhurst, IL
Posts: 276
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 08, 2017, 06:25am
CT1 CT1 is offline
Official & ***** Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 08, 2017, 10:25am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 27,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1 View Post
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 12, 2017, 05:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lindenhurst, IL
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 13, 2017, 08:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
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.
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:23pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 27,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 13, 2017, 12:24pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 27,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe View Post
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 14, 2017, 11:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lindenhurst, IL
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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...

Last edited by InsideTheStripe; Thu Sep 14, 2017 at 11:30pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
onsides kick on the free kick BuggBob Football 7 Tue Dec 06, 2011 05:29pm
Drop kick on Free kick, on 40 or behind it? airraider Football 6 Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:43am
Interfering with the Punt Returner Spence Football 4 Sat Sep 25, 2010 08:21am
Another Kick question (free kick) referee20 Football 15 Wed Sep 16, 2009 08:14pm
free kick rule todd self Football 2 Sat Oct 07, 2000 08:55pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1