usc vs. nd

yankeesfan · #1 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 15, 2005, 10:30pm

toward the end of the game when linart fumble out of bounce, why didnt they spot the ball at the 3 yard line where the ball went out at? they put the ball inside the 1 yard line. and then they added about 4 seconds to the clock. i think something went wrong there.

BoBo · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 15, 2005, 10:39pm

I agree on the spotting of the ball looked like it should have been on the 3 or 4 yard line. Clock was probably correct though. I have only seen the replay once but on the sneak it looks like Reggie Bush I believe "aided" the runner on the score.

How many people have called aiding the runner? In 12 yrs as a White Hat I had never called it but have had 2 this year alone.

yankeesfan · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 15, 2005, 10:47pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BoBo
I agree on the spotting of the ball looked like it should have been on the 3 or 4 yard line. Clock was probably correct though. I have only seen the replay once but on the sneak it looks like Reggie Bush I believe "aided" the runner on the score.

How many people have called aiding the runner? In 12 yrs as a White Hat I had never called it but have had 2 this year alone.

he definelty aided the runner, no question. does the ncaa have that rule?

Texoma_LJ · #4 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 15, 2005, 10:51pm

Not only was there aiding the runner, but when watching ESPN coverage, there is a coach that is standing right there at the point where the ball went out of bounds. Since there was time left on the game clock I am extremely suprised that there wasnt a flag on this (also).

waltjp · #5 (**permalink**) Sat Oct 15, 2005, 11:39pm

Bush admitted to pushing Leinart.

"I used all 200 pounds of my body to push Matt in," said Bush, who ran for 160 yards on 15 carries with three touchdowns.

OverAndBack · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Oct 16, 2005, 01:05pm

That's the first thing I said - "Aiding the runner."

Then I thought, how much help does Matt Leinart (6-5, 225) need? But Bush definitely pushed him in.

That would have been ballsy to make that call. But I think it should have been made. Easy for me to say from here.

TXMike · #7 (**permalink**) Sun Oct 16, 2005, 01:32pm

Actually I believe he would have made it without the push. The spin is what did it, combined with ND's faulty defensive movement.

Gman34 · #8 (**permalink**) Sun Oct 16, 2005, 01:40pm

Did anyone see the HL signal TD on that play before the ball flew out of bounds? He had the deer in the headlights look. Next time you see the replay look for the official.

TXMike · #9 (**permalink**) Sun Oct 16, 2005, 02:09pm

He clearly started to signal TD but changed that to stopping the clock very quickly. I just finished a TIVO frame by frame review:

Ball was snapped at 2. H is standing at the 2 and Box Man is behind him. Not sure what the PAC-10 mechanics are but H did not go to GL at snap, he stayed in place (although in this play I am not sure that mattered as there is no question ball did not cross the plane of GL). As QB rolled his way, H started to the GL. A ND defender, coming from inside out, knocked the ball loose as ball as at the 1 and QB was starting to dive. Ball went almost directly sideways (which would be in keeping with the laws of physics) and went out of bounds hitting the band members. You can see the ball clearly passing between the box man and the H. The Box Man never moved upfield so he was still on the 2 when ball passed in front of him. The correct spot would have to be someplace between the GL and the 2. It was spotted at the 1 for the next play (which ended up being the TD play).

As for the "deer in the headlights" I suspect 99.9% of us would have looked that way. It was a huge game, he was surrounded by people, the play was right in his lap and he could not have moved much even if he had wanted to. To his credit, his mind obviously kicked in and he realized he had something strange here so he was processing it. That may account for some of that "deer in the headlights". Bottom line, he got it right as far as I can tell although there was room for improvement mechanically, i.e. get to GL at snap, get a bean bag out to sell the fumble, move to spot where you think ball crossed sideline instead of holding the spot of fumble spot.

benfunke · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 17, 2005, 01:04pm

If Leinart fumbled backwards, which it appears he did (?), then A) is he given forward progress? and B) does the clock continue to run since his progress was stopped in-bounds?

This might be different for NFL and NCAA, but my understanding was that in the NFL if a player goes out of bounds in reverse or fumbles backwards out of bounds, then the ball is spotted where progress stopped and the clock continues to run.

JasonTX · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 17, 2005, 01:36pm

Quote:

Originally posted by benfunke
If Leinart fumbled backwards, which it appears he did (?), then A) is he given forward progress? and B) does the clock continue to run since his progress was stopped in-bounds?

This might be different for NFL and NCAA, but my understanding was that in the NFL if a player goes out of bounds in reverse or fumbles backwards out of bounds, then the ball is spotted where progress stopped and the clock continues to run.

In NCAA the clock stops for a fumble that goes out of bounds behind the spot it was fumble and restarts on the snap. If it goes forward and out of bounds it restarts on the ready for play.

WhistlesAndStripes · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 17, 2005, 01:51pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BoBo
How many people have called aiding the runner? In 12 yrs as a White Hat I had never called it but have had 2 this year alone.

2nd year official. Had it twice this year, on consecutive days even.

BktBallRef · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 17, 2005, 02:31pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JasonTX

Quote:

Originally posted by benfunke
In NCAA the clock stops for a fumble that goes out of bounds behind the spot it was fumble and restarts on the snap. If it goes forward and out of bounds it restarts on the ready for play.

Yet Leinart says that he didn't spike the ball because the clock would start on the whistle and he didn't think there was time to spike it.

Dumb jock.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Oct 18th, 2005 at 09:05 PM]

BoomerSooner · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 17, 2005, 03:35pm

I think maybe the dumbest move of them all is the ND coaching staff not calling a time out. I think had they done so, USC might have just kicked the FG. At the very least, they could have prepared for the sneak or some other play. As we have said the clock was going to start on the snap, not the ready so other than allowing USC to plan a play, what did he have to lose? Everybody was very emotional after the fumble play (some ND players thought the game was over), and Charlie could have calmed them down, reset with a goalline defense package and play, and maybe stopped them. I know this fits more with a coaching site than official's site, but thats my take.

To bring it to a question of officiating, should this have been explained to both coaches more clearly (i.e. clock starts on the snap, exactly what happened, etc.)? It seems that other than to tell Weiss to get himself and his players/fans off the field, he wasn't told much. I could be wrong, but I never saw an official go to Weiss. They sure did to Pete Carroll, but maybe that's because he was down around the 5 yd line when this all came about (flag anyone?). This is just what I saw and remember, its 2 days later and I didn't record the game or anything.

JugglingReferee · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 17, 2005, 07:52pm

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/5000806

Don't ever do this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Associated Press
Weis said the referee first told him Leinart had fumbled the ball forward, then ruled he had fumbled it backward. He said he was told by the referee that the official who had made the ruling had changed his mind.

As an official, don't ever change your mind. Just make the right call to begin with.

It would have been nice to see an official with steel gonades to call the tandem buck, too.