Sugar Bowl Safety

[Hooah30]

Can anyone support the call?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Hooah30

Can anyone support the call?

Sure. The back broke the tackle and in a separate act tried to get out of the end zone. His forward progress wasn't stopped in the judgment of the official.

If the back had broken free and run the 102 yards for a touchdown, I'm sure John Cooper would want forward progress stopped and the ball placed back on the 3 yard line. Right.

(In other words, why should the offense always get the benefit of any doubt?)

[Hooah30]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Sure. The back broke the tackle and in a separate act tried to get out of the end zone. His forward progress wasn't stopped in the judgment of the official.

If the back had broken free and run the 102 yards for a touchdown, I'm sure John Cooper would want forward progress stopped and the ball placed back on the 3 yard line. Right.

(In other words, why should the offense always get the benefit of any doubt?)

My question to you then is.... When is forward progress stopped? He was driven backward for 5 yards and as is typical in the college game there was no whistle.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Hooah30

My question to you then is.... When is forward progress stopped? He was driven backward for 5 yards and as is typical in the college game there was no whistle.

The whistle does not make the play dead, the play is already dead by rule. If that play happen at the 50 I would have likely had forward progress back at the original spot that the player was going backwards.

Peace

[wisref2]

didn't see the play - but keep this mind. Was he trying to gain yardage? If you want the right to gain yards, you have to accept the responsibility of losing yardage or fumbling.

[Hooah30]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The whistle does not make the play dead, the play is already dead by rule. If that play happen at the 50 I would have likely had forward progress back at the original spot that the player was going backwards.

Peace

Certainly the whistle doesn't make the play day... Just wondering why they wear them around their neck?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Hooah30

My question to you then is.... When is forward progress stopped? He was driven backward for 5 yards and as is typical in the college game there was no whistle.

100% official's judgment. The covering official judged that the back broke free of the tackler in the EZ.

No rule was misapplied in the play. If you want to argue judgment, I'm sure you can find a fan site to entertain you.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

100% official's judgment. The covering official judged that the back broke free of the tackler in the EZ.

No rule was misapplied in the play. If you want to argue judgment, I'm sure you can find a fan site to entertain you.

What are the usual guidelines used for this judgment?

On the replay (which wasn't shown in what you posted above), it looks like he was driven back 7 yards and tackled. In live action (above) the RB's lean forward as the first tackler falls off his upper body to his legs make it appear that he is moving forward even though his position on the field is still moving back.

What is it that he would have seen that would have lead him to the judgment?

Overall, I thought the crew did a pretty good job. The only other call I didn't care for was the no call on the pass interference where the Arkansas player's legs tangled with the receiver's legs. It looked intentional to me rather than just legs getting tangled.

[Hooah30]

Originally Posted by mbyron

100% official's judgment. The covering official judged that the back broke free of the tackler in the EZ.

No rule was misapplied in the play. If you want to argue judgment, I'm sure you can find a fan site to entertain you.

If I hadn't been coaching and officiating high school football for almost 20 years perhaps a fan site would be more proper... Since I don't officiate or coach college, I thought and still do think my question has merit.

I am anxious for you to answer my question... When is forward progress stopped. Do you people really expect a player to give himself up?

Keep in my mind the following two things...
1. Giving yourself up is not a natural instinct... Youth football to the pros... Giving up in that situation is to allow the defenders to collapse you... Ever had that happen? I thought that is why officials carried whistles... If not why not just let every play end with a person on the ground or out of play then spot the ball accordingly?

2. Given that there was no indication that the play became dead, should the back assume he was spotted outside the end zone?

The point I am stuck on is officials judgement... That is an easy out but there has to be some basis for that judgement and the answer that as long as the runner is fighting for yards is not the right answer. It simply is not. At some point an official must decide when a player's progress has been halted. If 5 yards of being driven backwards is not enough, pray tell what is? Is it 6, 7, 50 yards?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Hooah30

1. Giving yourself up is not a natural instinct... Youth football to the pros... Giving up in that situation is to allow the defenders to collapse you... Ever had that happen? I thought that is why officials carried whistles... If not why not just let every play end with a person on the ground or out of play then spot the ball accordingly?

This has nothing to do with a natural instinct. If you go down and realize the play is over, then you cannot worry about what else will be called. And officials carry whistles to rule they have stopped the play, which is why I said a similar play in the situation where an Arkansas player would have just went down he would not have been ruled he fumbled the ball.

Originally Posted by Hooah30

2. Given that there was no indication that the play became dead, should the back assume he was spotted outside the end zone?

The player should realize where he is on the field and stop trying to get away. Maybe you have not been coaching or officiating in 20 years but I see players all the time go down when they are in certain areas of the field or the game is in a critical moment. Heck 20 years ago our coach told us to do that when he had a lead to not fumble the football.

Originally Posted by Hooah30

The point I am stuck on is officials judgement... That is an easy out but there has to be some basis for that judgement and the answer that as long as the runner is fighting for yards is not the right answer. It simply is not. At some point an official must decide when a player's progress has been halted. If 5 yards of being driven backwards is not enough, pray tell what is? Is it 6, 7, 50 yards?

Well what else do you want? Do you want anytime a player is pushed back to be a dead play. So that would mean that any second effort play would result in a play being over and many first downs or extra yardage plays would not happen. And it is not about going backwards, is about being in control of the ball carrier. It is arguable that he was not in control and he did get away. You do not have to agree and I do not have to agree, but it was clear that one player was not able to bring that player to the ground. And when the ball carrier was grasped he was also fighting to get away. You allow that to happen on some level, whether that applied here or the play was over is always going to be in the judgment of the officials on the game. It is easy to sit here and say what we should do, but I see these plays all the time and the runner gets away. You cannot have it both ways.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Sure. The back broke the tackle and in a separate act tried to get out of the end zone. His forward progress wasn't stopped in the judgment of the official.

If the back had broken free and run the 102 yards for a touchdown, I'm sure John Cooper would want forward progress stopped and the ball placed back on the 3 yard line. Right.

(In other words, why should the offense always get the benefit of any doubt?)

Admittedly having watched this with scarlet and gray glasses on, I didn't see a separate act or even a broken tackle. It didn't appear the RB ever stopped being driven back or disengaged from the first tackler (he still had a hold on the RB's legs) before being wrapped up by the two new tacklers.

That said, the RB needs to know to go down when he's wrapped up at the 2. And for Brutus' sake, don't call a play where you hand off 5 yards deep in the end zone. < shudder >

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If the back had broken free and run the 102 yards for a touchdown, I'm sure John Cooper would want forward progress stopped and the ball placed back on the 3 yard line. Right.

Were you watching a bowl game from 15 years ago?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Were you watching a bowl game from 15 years ago?

Time warp, I guess. Tressel. I actually had to look that up. One of my least favorite programs in all of college sports. Every time I hear a player introducing himself and he says "THEE Ohio...." I want to throw a brick through my TV.

[JRutledge]

I was not in love with the call, but when the player disengaged he allowed the opportunity to continue to play. I guess the better question is if the ball carrier would have fumbled the ball at that point, would we have considered the ball live or said that forward progress was stopped? I think you can make a case for both a safety and forward progress being stopped in the field of play. I would have likely shut it down, but I can see both sides of this.

Peace

[Welpe]

In my opinion progress was stopped at the 2.