Iowa-Texas Penalty

[BoBo]

I threw something up there tonight. As a Sooner fan tough sitting in the bars today, hate the hawks and the horns. but it will be quieter in these parts since the hawks lost.

[bisonlj]

There were several people who eventually posted comments defending the correct call. Someone tried to post an exerpt from the rule book but only posted the definition for players on the line of scrimmage. They didn't include sections defining eligible receivers or backs. Anyone who posts that was a judgement call that rarely gets called is definitely not knowledgeable about the rules. That's one of the easier calls for a wing official and gets called every time.

[BktBallRef]

I responded. I'm sure I'll ge slammed!

[RoyGardner]

While there is some judgement on virtually all calls, this one is easy. This one is a simple "daylight" call. If you're looking down the line and don't see "daylight" between the receiver "in the backfield" and the back end (excluding legs and feet) of the players who are legally on the line, then he's not in the backfield. As we know he's also not legally on the line (head must be breaking the line thru snapper's waist for that).

On this play IMO the receiver was in "no man's land", but regardless, he was not in the backfield, and the call was clearly correct.

I don't believe that many non-officials understand the interplay of the 3 sections of the rules defining who's on the line and who's in the backfield. Most think that if you're not on the line then you have to be in the backfield, and that's just not the case. They don't understand the no-man's land area where you're neither on the line or in the backfield.

[TXMike]

Looks like Ferentz has seen the light -
From a news report:
Coach Mack Brown said that Chandler being covered up is the reason he was so open.

“When a guy’s covered up, you don’t cover him,” said Brown.

Iowa head coach Kirk Ferentz wasn’t so sure that Chandler was completely on the line.

“I didn’t agree with the call, but it was a close call. It was a mistake we made,” said Ferentz, who also added: “The officiating crew did an outstanding job.”
================================================== =

and from HawkCentral.com

Controversial call proved pivotal
By Andy Hamilton
Iowa City Press-Citizen

SAN ANTONIO -- The Iowa football team started 2005 by debating the validity of a controversial alignment penalty.

The Hawkeyes ended the year the same way.

Saturday's Alamo Bowl started to turn in the favor of the Texas Longhorns when a penalty negated an Iowa touchdown that could've put the Hawkeyes ahead 21-3 late in the second quarter. Instead of celebrating a 9-yard pass from Drew Tate to Scott Chandler, the Hawkeyes were left wondering if Chandler really was lined up illegally and how the game would've turned out had the penalty not been called.

"It goes from putting us up 21-3 to 14-10 at the half," Chandler said. "That was probably one of the biggest plays of the game."

The Longhorns rallied for a 26-24 victory.

The penalty on Chandler was magnified when Aaron Ross intercepted Tate's next pass in the end zone, and the Longhorns then drove 80 yards for a touchdown.

Chandler came in motion to the right on the play in question, and an official ruled he line up on the line of scrimmage.

"Usually, when I come across, we're not going on a silent count, but because we were going with a silent count the timing's not exactly what it usually is," he said. "(The official) said when I was sitting there I jumped forward and reset on the line of scrimmage."

Since the Hawkeyes had an outside receiver already on the line, Chandler was prevented from going downfield. He ran all the way back across the formation and Tate found the tight end wide open.

"I thought it was a terrible call," Tate said. "There was no way he was up on the line of scrimmage. But we got screwed last year in the bowl and figured why not do it again? Those refs, maybe they saw something different. But I don't understand how it can't be reviewed."

Alignment calls are not reviewable. But Chandler said he asked the official about the penalty later in the game.

"He said, 'It was kind of ticky tack, but I had to call it,'" Chandler said. "He said he saw it on the replay and he was sure he was right."

Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz said he had "no gripe" with the call afterward.

"We didn't agree with the interpretation (at the time), but at halftime a couple of our guys upstairs saw it on replay and thought it was certainly a callable violation," Ferentz said. "It was a mistake we made on alignment and we took points off the board there.

"I'll just say this, too: I thought the officiating crew did an outstanding job. It was a very well-officiated ballgame. That's good to know that wasn't a factor in the ballgame."

[Theisey]

The receiver wasn't in no-man's land (i.e. a mugwump), he was on the line but covered up by the outside wide receiver.

Only the offensive coordinator knows for sure which one was in the incorrect position, but it would be my guess the wide guy failed to lineup correctly. I'm sure we've all seen this in our games.

Don't understand the officials comment about it being a ticky-tacky call. It's no more ticky than when the offense lines up with only 6-men on the line and that gets flagged without hesitation.

[TXMike]

Absolutely right, he was not a mugwump, he was on the line all the way.

The player himself has admitted he lined up wrong and blamed it on the fact they were using a "silent count" so his "timing" was off.

And do any of us truly think an official told the player it was a "ticky tack call"???