Sugar Bowl Safety

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Certainly you've heard of cross-field mechanics? The far wing *frequently* gets the progress spot of a player stopped in bounds. Matter of fact, that wing has a far easier time since he doesn't have to worry about bodies coming at him.

Yes I have, but that does not involve a conversation. It usually means that when the umpire gets the ball he picks the guy that has the best spot. I have never seen where there is a lot of debate over which spot is chosen. And most of the time it is a mirror of the calling official's spot. And in this case if the official standing near the play thinks the player spun out of tackle (a judgment call), who cares what the other guy has. Again we are not talking about a spot where a person is down, we are talking about a guy that was pushed back and the issue is if there is a player in the grasp rather than a knee being down. Not sure how cross field mechanics is going to necessarily get that right if the calling official makes a judgment. And the whistle also has nothing to do with that ruling. You either have the person at one spot or another. The whistle being blown is irreverent to that spot.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes I have, but that does not involve a conversation. It usually means that when the umpire gets the ball he picks the guy that has the best spot.

To me, it means that when progress is stopped in the field of play the cross-field official gets the progress spot and then the near wing mirrors that spot.

If the cross-field official had progress stopped in the field of play, he should've had a whistle and killed the play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

To me, it means that when progress is stopped in the field of play the cross-field official gets the progress spot and then the near wing mirrors that spot.

If the cross-field official had progress stopped in the field of play, he should've had a whistle and killed the play.

I am not disagreeing with you on the usage of cross-field mechanics; I just do not think it is appropriate for every kind of play. And to have forward progress on a play where a player is being pushed back would be really hard considering how many things I have to be sure about. This is why the wing went to the Referee for some kind of help and did not pay much attention to the opposite wing (based on what people are claiming). This was an issue of not a knee being down; this was an issue of being under control. Not sure how a wing on the other side of the field with a lot of players around can make this determination. If they are, they better see leather and now they could in this situation are beyond reality in my opinion.

Peace

[Mike L]

Nice reverse angle, but I still would've ruled progress before he "broke" the tackle. He's wrapped and driven back 4 yds. That's enough for me.
How far do you let him get driven back before you stop the play? I'm not being sarcastic here. I just want to know how many yards you allow before you say "enough".
And on a side note, this is not a play where cross field mechanics would be necessary. There is no reason the H should need that help on this play.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Nice reverse angle, but I still would've ruled progress before he "broke" the tackle. He's wrapped and driven back 4 yds. That's enough for me.

How far do you let him get driven back before you stop the play? I'm not being sarcastic here. I just want to know how many yards you allow before you say "enough".

I don't officiate, and in the instant case I'm not sure whether I'd've killed the ball or not, but if I did have to make such rulings, the distance a ballcarrier was driven backward, or for that matter the total distance a ballcarrier was ridden while moving backward under an opponent's force, would not be a factor in my deciding whether the player was "so held as to stop his forward progress". Time would probably figure into it, but not distance.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't officiate, and in the instant case I'm not sure whether I'd've killed the ball or not, but if I did have to make such rulings, the distance a ballcarrier was driven backward, or for that matter the total distance a ballcarrier was ridden while moving backward under an opponent's force, would not be a factor in my deciding whether the player was "so held as to stop his forward progress". Time would probably figure into it, but not distance.

Not just time, but if you feel he was completely in the grasp of the tackler. That is always going to be a judgment call and why you will not have everyone agrees on this play. And if the player is fighting to get away I am going to be more careful to judge a completed tackle especially when it is only one guy making the tackle. If there were a couple of more people than I would have no problem saying his progress was stopped. But one guy and a physical back I am going to let that go a little longer. No one size fits all, but I do not assume anything with these players.

Peace

[IlliniBob72]

It was an absolutely atrocious call. It makes no difference whether or not he broke the tackle. The ball carrier isn't penalized for the defensive player being a poor tackler. The ball carrier was forced backwards by the defensive player and not under his own power. He can break the tackle in the end zone and run around for 15 seconds back there, but no matter if he is tackled there, he still gets the 2 yard line.

This idea is at the very root of scoring a touchdown when the ball breaks the plane of the goal line. If the ball crosses the line, that is forward progress and the TD is scored. A defensive player can't hit the runner one yard INTO the end zone, drive him out, let him go and have someone else tackle him and avoid the touchdown. Same goes here. Once he got out of the end zone and didn't go back in on his own, the possibility of a safety should have been gone.