The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Fed Face guarding? (https://forum.officiating.com/football/92529-fed-face-guarding.html)

bigjohn Fri Sep 28, 2012 07:49am

Fed Face guarding?
 
I don't see a flag from the B


Play Of The Day: Amazing High School Catch - YouTube


http://s3.amazonaws.com/winito_prod/...7d_normal_.JPG

maven Fri Sep 28, 2012 08:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 856436)
I don't see a flag from the B

Me neither. Good call!

DLH17 Fri Sep 28, 2012 08:22am

We get a good shot of the BJ in the youtube vid. I gotta believe he is going to throw that flag if there isn't a reception by A. Then again, who knows.

Rule: 7-5-10



ART. 10 . . . It is forward-pass interference if:

a. Any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an eligible opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass.

b. Any player hinders an opponent's vision without making an attempt to catch, intercept or bat the ball, even though no contact was made.

maven Fri Sep 28, 2012 08:28am

If you think this was face guarding, take a look at the Aloha Clinic 2012 video on PI (you have to download it: right click the link and "Save As"). The first two plays provide the correct philosophy on calling this foul.

MD Longhorn Fri Sep 28, 2012 08:35am

This is not face guarding. It might be attempted face guarding - but just like attempting to block in the back and failing, attempting is not a foul. (Unless receivers eyes are in his shoulders.)

DLH17 Fri Sep 28, 2012 08:44am

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 856443)
If you think this was face guarding, take a look at the Aloha Clinic 2012 video on PI (you have to download it: right click the link and "Save As"). The first two plays provide the correct philosophy on calling this foul.

What's up with that link? My PC won't open it and neither will Safari on my iPhone.

JRutledge Fri Sep 28, 2012 08:52am

I got faceguarding. It might be a bad attempt, but the flag is out before this catch. Rare call, but I feel confident in making it here.

Peace

DLH17 Fri Sep 28, 2012 09:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 856452)
I got faceguarding. It might be a bad attempt, but the flag is out before this catch. Rare call, but I feel confident in making it here.

Peace

I agree, this is a clear case of DPI - faceguarding. Question - do you still have a DPI IF the defender looks back for the ball at the last second? In other words, do you watch this whole play through before throwing a flag?

maven Fri Sep 28, 2012 09:12am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH17 (Post 856450)
What's up with that link? My PC won't open it and neither will Safari on my iPhone.

See my parenthetical note next to the link. ;)

JRutledge Fri Sep 28, 2012 09:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLH17 (Post 856456)
I agree, this is a clear case of DPI - faceguarding. Question - do you still have a DPI IF the defender looks back for the ball at the last second? In other words, do you watch this whole play through before throwing a flag?

I call this once I have faceguarding. Now I tend to wait for the play to end anyway, but the flag would likely come out before it was clear he had a catch in this specific situation.

Peace

jdmara Fri Sep 28, 2012 09:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by maven (Post 856443)
If you think this was face guarding, take a look at the Aloha Clinic 2012 video on PI (you have to download it: right click the link and "Save As"). The first two plays provide the correct philosophy on calling this foul.

Play #9 (5:56). Is the slot receiver that is highlighted an eligible receiver? Sure looks like he is covered up to me

-Josh

MD Longhorn Fri Sep 28, 2012 09:49am

I should have prefaced my comments with the fact that I was using the picture to make that statement, and not the video. I can't see youtube video at work - so it may have been more obviously faceguarding based on the video than it is based on the picture posted.

maven Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdmara (Post 856463)
Play #9 (5:56). Is the slot receiver that is highlighted an eligible receiver? Sure looks like he is covered up to me

-Josh

Yep, hard to put either guy on that side in the backfield.

Robert Goodman Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:34am

From the video, not even close to face guarding. The player in white never looked toward the ball, but was watching the player in black all the way. The player in black was playing the ball. So not only was it not face guarding because he was making an attempt to catch it (which succeeded), it was not face guarding because he didn't hinder the opponent's vision -- the opponent was looking the wrong way to begin with. I don't know what you guys who are calling it face guarding are seeing, from such a good video.

JRutledge Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:44am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 856484)
From the video, not even close to face guarding. The player in white never looked toward the ball, but was watching the player in black all the way. The player in black was playing the ball. So not only was it not face guarding because he was making an attempt to catch it (which succeeded), it was not face guarding because he didn't hinder the opponent's vision -- the opponent was looking the wrong way to begin with. I don't know what you guys who are calling it face guarding are seeing, from such a good video.

It is based on interpretation. Again we do not judge whether they actually succeed in obstructing vision, we judge based on the fact the arms are up and attempting to do nothing else but get in the way of the vision. There is no other reason a player puts their arms up in that manner unless you are trying to "face guard." The problem is that players often do this when they are clearly beat and as a last resort. But to say this is clearly not a foul is laughable. This has been show as evidence over the years by the NF in video and in their Simplified and Illustrated book.

Peace

HLin NC Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:57am

Quote:

The player in white never looked toward the ball, but was watching the player in black all the way.
You do realize that is probably reason #1 to call it DPI? You argue against your own position.

MD Longhorn Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 856484)
From the video, not even close to face guarding. The player in white never looked toward the ball, but was watching the player in black all the way. The player in black was playing the ball. So not only was it not face guarding because he was making an attempt to catch it (which succeeded), it was not face guarding because he didn't hinder the opponent's vision -- the opponent was looking the wrong way to begin with. I don't know what you guys who are calling it face guarding are seeing, from such a good video.

Um ... I think your complete misunderstanding of this play is the result of you thinking the player in white was the offense. White is the defense, and the player guilty of faceguarding. Black is offense, and is looking at the ball, and somehow managed to catch it behind White's head.

JRutledge Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 856489)
Um ... I think your complete misunderstanding of this play is the result of you thinking the player in white was the offense. White is the defense, and the player guilty of faceguarding. Black is offense, and is looking at the ball, and somehow managed to catch it behind White's head.

Also faceguarding is not unique to the defense. Both offense and defense cannot face guard.

Peace

MD Longhorn Fri Sep 28, 2012 01:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 856491)
Also faceguarding is not unique to the defense. Both offense and defense cannot face guard.

Peace

I know that... but it's apparent from what he said that he's looking at the wrong guy as the faceguarder.

CT1 Fri Sep 28, 2012 02:29pm

I would want my crew to have a DPI flag on this play, without waiting to see if it were completed.

Robert Goodman Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 856485)
It is based on interpretation. Again we do not judge whether they actually succeed in obstructing vision, we judge based on the fact the arms are up and attempting to do nothing else but get in the way of the vision.

But that's not what the player in black was doing, he was going for the ball. Meanwhile the player in white was playing the player in black, not looking for the ball. It's hard for me to believe we could be seeing this so differently.

Robert Goodman Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 856494)
I know that... but it's apparent from what he said that he's looking at the wrong guy as the faceguarder.

Oh. Never mind. I was indeed trying to find the face guarding on the part of the black player that I thought you guys were imagining. I could certainly understand the white player's being flagged.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1