State Championship Call

[bisonlj]

We all want to advance to the state championship and make the right call at the right time. Watch the play in the link below. Team A has a 4th and goal with 9 seconds left down by 8. Did the official make the right call? Do you notice anything else on the play?

Warren Central Quaterbck Derek Hart connected with Maurice McGee on Fouth Down Conversion, but McGee Appeared to be out of bounds - IndySports

Team A converted the 2 point conversion and sent the game into overtime where they won 42-36 in the second overtime.

[john_faz]

It also looks like the snapper is covered and then goes downfield on a pass pattern. I am not all that clear on the numbering exceptions but since he is covered that would be a 5 yard penalty and a negation of the touchdown that should nothave been called in the first place.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by john_faz

It also looks like the snapper is covered and then goes downfield on a pass pattern. I am not all that clear on the numbering exceptions but since he is covered that would be a 5 yard penalty and a negation of the touchdown that should nothave been called in the first place.

Correct, the snapper is covered, illegal man downfield.

It's moot but the official must have ruled that he was forced out and would have come down in bounds had it not been for the contact. With the benefit of replay I disagree but that's a tough call on the spot. Prob should err on the side of no catch though.

[Theisey]

It wasn't the snapper who went downfield... it was the player to his right who did. That player was covered in this odd formation.

The only explanation one can offer is the official thought the receiver would come down in-bounds without the contact.

While I tend to agree in principle, its my understanding that when any such contact is in the direction a receiver is already moving and subsequently landing OOB is the result.. the pass is incomplete. That's how I would have ruled on this one.

[Mike L]

anyone also have a problem with the snapper facing the sideline rather than the opponent's goal line as required?

[BktBallRef]

Yes Mike, that would be an issue as well.

[Jim D.]

He was there and made the call and I hate to second guess him, but....

Since the receiver was headed out, I would be reluctant to make this call unless he was clearly carried out. I'm not sure he would have come down inbounds without contact.

He had two players out of bounds and turned away from them to give a TD signal. There is no need to face the center of the field while signalling TD. He should have been facing the receiver and defender.

If he was going to rule that he was forced out, here is where a suplimental signal would really help sell the call. Give a push signal and then a TD. At least people would know what he thought. This just looks like he missed the feet coming down out of bounds.

[Sonofanump]

They paint the out of bounds a different color to give us perspective. I like sideline plays on turf when you can see the mark the foot makes when the player comes down. Too bad they did not have 6 or 7 officials on this play.

[DJ_NV]

As much as I hate to second guess as well, after watching the film it looks like the H was watching ball only (as best I can tell). He followed the catch all the way through, but probably didn't know where the feet were until it didn't matter any longer.

As was taught to me very early in my officiating career, the game is called "football" for a reason, i.e., foot first, then ball. If the feet are out, the subsequent catch/no catch is of no significance.

I also concur with the other posters that the covering official needs to stay with the action all the way through and not turn back toward the field of play.

I know it's already been said, but right or wrong on this particular official's part, this is a learning experience for us all. All of us have had a call at some point that we would like to have back. All we can do from it is move on, learn, and hope that it can be used to teach others as well.

[JugglingReferee]

The player that caught the pass jumped from much further in the EZ than he landed outside of the EZ. Keeping in mind that he was contacted with non-trivial force, it is surprising to me that he landed only as much past the sideline in goal as he did.

I think he would have definitely landed inbounds, and therefore a touchdown. If the rule/AR is that the official can use his judgement on a force out, I think this official made the gutsy and correct call of a touchdown.

As for the legality of the snap and snapper's action, that is a different story, none of which I could comment on.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Theisey

It wasn't the snapper who went downfield... it was the player to his right who did. That player was covered in this odd formation.

Yes it was the snapper who went down field. He was standing with his shoulders parallel to the sideline and snapped it sideways a la flag football days.

The only explanation one can offer is the official thought the receiver would come down in-bounds without the contact.

Originally Posted by Theisey

While I tend to agree in principle, its my understanding that when any such contact is in the direction a receiver is already moving and subsequently landing OOB is the result.. the pass is incomplete. That's how I would have ruled on this one.

The case book very clearly states this is to be an intepretation of the force-out rule. If the contact is in the direction the receiver is already moving, the receiver has to complete the catch with at least one foot in bounds. That was obviously not the case.

[bigjohn]

Looks to me like the receiver is going toward the end line, not the sideline and then the contact makes him go OOB. Look at the end zone shot at the end of the clip.
He would have easily landed in bounds had he not been hit.
The case play you are quoting has to do with a play where the WR is barely inbounds and going out to get a ball, this ball was in bounds no doubt and the receiver was knocked OOB.

[asdf]

If he was going towards the endline he would have missed the ball by 5 yards.

Go back the the other board.

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Yes it was the snapper who went down field. He was standing with his shoulders parallel to the sideline and snapped it sideways a la flag football days.

A lot of things went bad on this play from an officiating standpoint. A good learning tool for all of us. I am wondering were the BJ was and why no help was given by him...

Bison...i just edited this post, initiallyit looked like #53 snapped it...Wow, i went back and looked about 9 times and you are correct, #53 is not the snapper, but the guy to his right snapped it and was facing sideways...

[bigjohn]

You like telling people where to go?


He was not going toward the sideline when he possessed the ball, he was knocked oob.

7.5.2k does apply it is (b) not (c) that fits!

A pass from A1 is thrown near the intersection of the sideline
and the goal line. A2, running toward the goal line, leaps and possesses the
pass at the 3-yard line and is forcibly:

(b) contacted
from the side by B1 and A2 first contacts the ground out of bounds opposite the
3-yard line;


RULING: Completed pass
in both (a) and (b).