Iowa-Texas Penalty

[bisonlj]

I was watching the Iowa-Texas game when Iowa had a 2nd and goal from the Texas 9 yard line late in the first half leading 14-3. I saw the TE lined up as a wing back on the left side and then go in motion. When he got to the right side of the line, he stepped forward and clearly established himself as a lineman. I thought that was odd since I was pretty sure he had been lined up in the backfield on the other side. I assumed maybe the wing receiver on the right side stepped back to be off the line.

The QB rolled right bringing everyone with him. He then turned and threw back to a wide open receiver in the end zone. Guess what...it was the tight end who turned out to be covered up. Either he was supposed to be off the line or the wing was supposed to step back. Replays clearly showed it was the right call...no question about it.

Iowa threw an interception on the next play and Texas marched down to score a TD right before the half. They just scored again to go ahead 20-14 midway through the third quarter. The play obviously had a huge impact on the game. I assumed the call would be discussed on the Iowa discussion boards and I was correct.

They are definitely seeing the play through Hawkeye colored eyes. They claim it was a ticky tack call that never gets called. I tried to post a message indicating it was an easy call, the correct call, and would be called every time. I enjoyed the innocent ignorance of the fans:

"The line was at the 9 , chandlers feet were at the 11. How the HELL is that on the line?"

"He's in a TE stance, he's #87 (it's not like he's an eligible tackle), and he IS a bit off the line."

"I hate that refs have to decide games on arbitrary calls that technically are penalties, but for the most part are never called."

"TECHNICALLY, he was not as far off the line as receivers usually are. But I believe he WAS a bit off the line. He was in a TE-style stance, not an O-line stance."

I was not able to post since I don't have an account on that site but I believe I've seen some Iowa people on this board. Would one of you please post an intelligent comment on the Iowa board so they can feel better about losing control of the game. Someone posted the announcers indicated it was the correct call but someone correctly stated the announcers are not experts on officiating. They did have an official in the booth however who correctly pointed out it was a correct call.

[JugglingReferee]

I saw the play. The correct call was made.

The thing about this type of call is that the other team correctly formed their offense not to commit this foul. It would not be consistent to allow an illegal act to go without a flag thrown.

Good on the officials, an oopsie on the players. It's their own fault.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Iowan Fanboy

"I hate that refs have to decide games on arbitrary calls that technically are penalties, but for the most part are never called."

I flag this every time I see it in any game that I officiate.

[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.