Florida State vs Wake Forest-What Happened?

[refmo64]

If anyone saw the Florida State vs Wake Forest game on 10/11, it took the crew of officials a while to figure out the penalty administration.

K (FS) punted to R (WF). During the punt, there was a block in the back by R. The punt came down and hit the K player that was blocked in the back. R then muffed the ball and K recovered.

After much deliberation, the ball was taken back to the preceding spot and R was penalized ten yards for the block in the back which gave K a first down.

No PSK since K ended up with the ball, but why was K not given (or did not take) the option of taking the ball where they recovered it?

[TXMike]

We do not know for sure as ACC has not spoken but the assumption is they ruled the touch by the player who was illegally blocked as an illegal touch by him. Therefore, if they had declined the penalty so they could keep the ball they would not be able to do so as B could take the ball at spot of illegal touch.

[andy1033]

Isn't the touching by K ignored if blocked or pushed into the ball?

[TXMike]

That is the crux of the discussion among officials on this play....what constitutes being blocked into the ball. One school says the intent of the rule is to cover situations where a player is blocked into a ball on the ground. Others, myself included, believe we should be able to judge whether or not the player would have likely touched the ball had he not been blocked. Furthermore, if he is ILLEGALLY blocked then he should probably most always be judged to have been blocked into the ball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by refmo64

If anyone saw the Florida State vs Wake Forest game on 10/11, it took the crew of officials a while to figure out the penalty administration.

K (FS) punted to R (WF). During the punt, there was a block in the back by R. The punt came down and hit the K player that was blocked in the back. R then muffed the ball and K recovered.

After much deliberation, the ball was taken back to the preceding spot and R was penalized ten yards for the block in the back which gave K a first down.

No PSK since K ended up with the ball, but why was K not given (or did not take) the option of taking the ball where they recovered it?

Sounds like they treated K's touch as an illegal touch (NCAA) or first touching (NFHS), not as forced touching. It's possible the block in the back and the touch were two separate, unrelated acts.

It may have taken a long time to administer, but if they did rule as I said above, they got the administration correct on a very complicated play and that's all that matters.

Friday night we had a live ball holding foul on A and a dead ball PF on B. We were very deliberate in discussing this play and then very deliberate in reporting it, too -- I sent the linesman to talk to the visiting coach and since I was already in front of the home bench, I talked to the home coach what was going to happen and then we marched off both penalties with me signaling each one before the U marked the yardage. Someone could've said we took to long, but I couldn't possibly care. I'm not on a clock and it's far worse for us to get it wrong or for the teams to not know what's happening.

[BktBallRef]

No, they did not get it right. They ruled that it was forced touching but they missed the fact that the ball touched the WF kick returner. That's why they didn't give FSU a chance to decline the penalty and keep the ball where it was recovered.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No, they did not get it right. They ruled that it was forced touching but they missed the fact that the ball touched the WF kick returner. That's why they didn't give FSU a chance to decline the penalty and keep the ball where it was recovered.

Hopw do you know they ruled forced touching? (And if they did, why did the BJ bag the spot where the ball hit the blocked player?)

And even if they ruled (as you are suggesting) that A's recovery was illegal, the enforcement would be PSK not previous spot.

[refmo64]

Good discussion ! But for now there's no good answer. If there is a ruling on it from the ACC, I would like to see it.

[andy1033]

If they ruled it forced touching then they must have seen the touching by R or PSk would apply.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by andy1033

If they ruled it forced touching then they must have seen the touching by R or PSk would apply.

No. If they saw the touch by Team B then that would have made Team A's recovery legal. And if it was legal then PSK would not apply as A is in possession at the end of the down.

[andy1033]

Thats what i said.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by andy1033

Thats what i said.

Yep It is late. I can't even see straight anymore.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by TXMike

And even if they ruled (as you are suggesting) that A's recovery was illegal, the enforcement would be PSK not previous spot.

You are correct, I misspoke. During their initial discussions when they were trying to sort it all out, they did not realize that the WF player had touched the ball. That was part of the initial confusion. But they did correct that later.

I cannot remember all the particulars that I was given. But I do know that they got the play wrong according to the superviser, who had a DVD waiting for every crew that worked a game that Saturday.