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?)

[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.

[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.

[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 >

[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?

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by Hooah30

Can anyone support the call?

In the youth leagues that I've called in my brief experience, I've been instructed to err on the side of player safety, that is, when the back had been pushed back several yards on the initial hit, kill the play with the whistle. I don't know if the rule regarding forward progress is different, but college officials tend to allow more second opportunities, and it makes for a more exciting game.
Players and coaches all know if you are driven back, you get to keep what you got in the first place, but if you run forward again, however slightly, then you reset from where you've been moved back to. He had to know he was behind the goal line and he made a decision to keep working instead of just giving up and taking his no-gain. That was just a bone-headed play by an otherwise talented RB and he got caught.
Moral of the story--your goal line is the most evil mark on the field, don't mess with it!

[mbyron]

Here's the video: safety starts at 1:50.

[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?

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Hooah30

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

The top statement is the point. If he would have just gone down then the play would have not been a safety. But when players often try to fight for extra yardage and they get away from these kinds of tackles, you let the play continue. Now if the one tackler had brought him down I agree without a question this is not a safety. But the player broke away and had 2 or 3 other players ultimately tackle him. This is not youth ball, these are great athletes. How many great plays do we see on SportsCenter when we think a player is down and they run for a TD or make big yardage after the first contact? The player has to know where he is on the field and stop fighting for yards. A similar thing happen earlier in the game when it appeared an Arkansas player could have been stopped, but was fighting for more yards and had the ball stripped out of his hand. If you are stopped, go down. When you continue to fight for yards, you are responsible for what happens after that until you are ruled to be truly stopped.

Peace

[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.