The Official Forum
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Alamo and the Sun Belt (https://forum.officiating.com/football/23933-alamo-sun-belt.html)

JasonTX Tue Jan 03, 2006 09:27am
Quote:
Originally posted by PWL
I believe a flag was thrown somewhere. I don't even do football. As for my knowledge, a half or a quarter cannot end on a defensive penalty only. This would have been offsetting penalties, time expired. No do over anyway.
The qtr. or 1/2 can't end on any accepted live ball foul not penalized as a dead ball foul by either team, not just the defense. This also applies to offsetting live ball fouls.

iebrf14 Tue Jan 03, 2006 09:39am
Guys,

This issue was why there was no flags.

We already know that if the flag were thrown they would be administered as dead ball fouls and even if they did not offset they would not do anything as the game was over with no time left on the clock.

And no score

TXMike Tue Jan 03, 2006 09:42am
That is not correct. There is a provision in the book that would have permitted penalties to offset as live ball fouls and down replayed. I can't answer why there were no flags.

mcrowder Tue Jan 03, 2006 01:53pm
One of the players that came off the side of the field was a mere 1 yard from the ball carrier after the ball was pitched back (just after the "fumble" or incomplete backward pass part of this play), and the ballcarrier DEFINITELY altered his direction of his run because of that player and because of the hoard of players further to his left.

To me, this was clearly illegal participation, possibly warranting an awarded score, but at the very least allowing a replay. Whether Mich's coaches entering the field of play is debatable, but at the very least it would be offsetting illegal participations. Personally, I would have had IP on Nebr, and SW on Michigan - not offsetting, and Michigan would have run another play - from the 6 1/2 of Nebraska.

iebrf14 Tue Jan 03, 2006 02:11pm
Replay would not be available to see who came on for NE and if he did change the runners direction and/or if the MICH players kept one of the NE players (Who was reallly the saftey) from getting to the ball carrier)

The games over and we all could say that MICH should not have allowed NE to get back into the game.

We could discuss this game ad nauseam.

NUFF SAID

mcrowder Tue Jan 03, 2006 02:37pm
A true point that they could not use replay. But put yourself in the place of either linesman on the Nebraska side. You're watching the play, and all of a sudden, people from BEHIND you are now in FRONT of you. I don't know about you, but I know my flag is on the ground at this point - and I'm watching this (these!) player(s) in my peripheral vision to see if they come anywhere near the play. When the play comes back my way - the penalty becomes illegal participation.

The problem lie in the fact that this crew was in over their heads. This exact sitch could happen to ANY of us, and I would hope that we would be aware of our surroundings enough to at LEAST have laundry on the field. At least when we botch this one, it's not on national TV, replayed on ESPN over and over.

JasonTX Tue Jan 03, 2006 03:09pm
Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder

To me, this was clearly illegal participation, possibly warranting an awarded score, but at the very least allowing a replay. Whether Mich's coaches entering the field of play is debatable, but at the very least it would be offsetting illegal participations. Personally, I would have had IP on Nebr, and SW on Michigan - not offsetting, and Michigan would have run another play - from the 6 1/2 of Nebraska.
What rule would you use to support a Sideline Warning? Illegal participation occurs when more than 11 players participate after the snap. At the snap both teams had 11 players so it's not illegal participation. If the players or coaches simply step onto the field they have violated 9-2-1-b-1 which is an USC (penalized as a dead ball foul) . If they truly interefered they have committed Illegal Interference 9-1-4. The signal is the same as USC but this foul is a live ball foul with basic spot enforcement. Perhaps the thing to do would penalize NE for Illegal interference and then penalize MI for USC for being on the field but not interfering. 15 yards using basic spot enforcement for the interference and then 15 yards for the USC from the succeeding spot.

Dommer1 Mon Jan 09, 2006 06:37am
I would have no problem invoking 9-2-3-c. I think having about 100 people on the field blocking of at least half of it is a situation so extreme that you can't really say it's specifically covered by the rules. This would allow the referee to enforce any penalty he deems equitable. No way am I calling this a live ball foul penalized as a dead ball foul.

TXMike Sun Jun 11, 2006 07:09am
MAybe Mr Parry is reading our discussion boards. Word is out that the 2006 NCAA Officiating video includes the last play of the Alamobowl and now Mr Parry is saying, as many of us said back then, should have been offsetting penalties and down replay.

tpaul Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
I don't know about offsetting penalties on this. Having players or coaches enter the field, but remain irrelevant is usually just a sideline warning. The Nebraska players were ON the field, and affected the play. 1 of them was less than a foot from the ballcarrier. The fact that they were all over one side of the field effectively limited the playing field available to the runner (although I would say that the runner, next time, should run INTO that hoard of players - he'd definitely get the penalty called then).

I think it's a travesty that there wasn't at least some laundry on the field. Whether you believe this was IP on both teams or just Nebraska, these guys REALLY dropped the ball not flagging anything at all.

And I think these boys were a bit caught up in it all - they didn't look comfortable the entire game.
My only statement on what happened at the end, was the officials should have made a PA announcement after the play on what had happened/ or how it was covered by rule. A couple days later in the papers they said it was ruled properly...I felt as a fan left out in the dark.

tpaul Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXMike
Do you know NCAA rules? If not, take a look at 9-2-1-b-1 Penalties would have been enforced from suceeding spot and since there would be none as time expired, game would be over. Same result as we saw last night.

I heard that a week later. I just think the referee should have stepped up and made that announcement on TV. It would have killed alot of what we are talking about now...don't you think?

TxJim Mon Jun 12, 2006 01:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpaul
I heard that a week later. I just think the referee should have stepped up and made that announcement on TV. It would have killed alot of what we are talking about now...don't you think?
I was at the game in the endzone corner the direction the last play was coming, opposite side (Neb side). There were non-eligibles from both teams on the field.
I thought the game ended properly then and I still do.
Since there were no flags dropped, what sort of Public Address should be expected from the Ref to explain an albeit convoluted play, but still a play absent a flag?

Just because TV can detect it and Mike Torico says it doesn't make it part of the game for the officials to grab the mike and explain a detailed no-call, opening them up to even more scrutiny, fair and unfair.

tpaul Tue Jun 13, 2006 07:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TxJim
I was at the game in the endzone corner the direction the last play was coming, opposite side (Neb side). There were non-eligibles from both teams on the field.
I thought the game ended properly then and I still do.
Since there were no flags dropped, what sort of Public Address should be expected from the Ref to explain an albeit convoluted play, but still a play absent a flag?

Just because TV can detect it and Mike Torico says it doesn't make it part of the game for the officials to grab the mike and explain a detailed no-call, opening them up to even more scrutiny, fair and unfair.
I am in no way giving the announcers the right of way. They are idiots that usually speak too soon. What I was referring to was the reports that came out after the game from the Sun Belt Officials association. They said the play was covered and enforced properly. Saying all fouls on that play would be ruled dead ball fouls enforced from the succeeding spot. So, the officials did the right thing...So from that statement there should have been flags and a explanation of the fouls on the play.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07am.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1