I found a play that I was trying to get other opinions on... so I created a video clip and emailed it out.. I had such great response that I posted it on the web and was looking for more video clips to post. This first one lead to great debate.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0kkni/footballvideo/

I hope to have it up for about another week before I put up a new one...

The DB hooks the WR with his right hand on the receiver's right shoulder prior to the ball arriving. The Hook is one of the things that college officials are told to look for when making a PI call. The Hook is not as pronounced as I've seen but it's still a hook.

I have DPI on this play.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Aug 11th, 2003 at 12:05 AM]

DPI for certain...

Agree with everyone else (thus far). DPI

Not DPI
 

I was actually the official on the field and had a NO call on the play. My thoughts at the time were I did not see enough change in the receiver to call it... I might be wrong, but the poll is coming about 50-50 on the call.

David

NEW video on the site regarding Late HITS...


Questions: Late hit on Quarterback?, Line judge should of made the call?

NCAA:
No player shall run into or throw himself against an opponent obviously out of the play...
No opponent shall tackle or block the runner when he is clearly out of bounds or throw him to the ground after the ball becomes dead.

NFHS:
No Player shall:
Charge into or throw an opponent to the ground after he is obviously out of the play
Make any ontract...which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness

Check out the new video.. I will post some other ones soon on some late hits...

Agree that a late hit (PF) should have been called, but the Referee should have the primary responsiblity on this call. His job is to "Baby-Sit" the QB. If the LJ saw it, he could make the call as well. He has forward progress, etc to watch as well. LJ may have been a little quick and too focused on Forward Progress. Wings stay wind and keep head on Swivel. If you don't call a foul at a minimimum it's a talk to.

Re: Not DPI
 

I agree, you're wrong. :D

I hope you don't mind, I posted the link on another site. If you do, just let me know and I'll erase it. This is a great idea, David. Thanks!

Re: Re: Not DPI
 

Well, I had the backing of my college supervisor and an NFL Replay Ref.. IT was a very interesting and close play to see. The slow motion really brings out how close things are out there.

Re: Re: Re: Not DPI
 

I am hoping to get others to look at plays and hopefully send me more plays to view and discuss. YOu are welcome to pass along the link at anytime.

David

Obviously this would be hard to pick up on during the actual game, but it looks like the defensive player starts to focus on the running back and when he sees the RB is being tackled he then refocuses his attention on the QB to make the hit. The QB was not pretending to be a runner by carrying out a fake and I dont believe the defender thought he had the ball either, so this would definitely be a personl foul.

Would have like to have seen the DPI/noDPI clip, but the running play video you have up now is one that does fit the criteria of late hit.
Seems the right DE had only one thing on his mind... to get the QB which he did. Square in the back.
Wing official is tied up with the play action up the middle. The Referee should be focusing on the QB at this point.
Did he flag it?

Agree that the hit on the QB was unnecessary. I believe that the R should have had the primary responsibility for seeing it. The LJ should be watching the lead blocking and then pick up the runner as he approaches the LOS.

Also, for the DPI call, I've heard from several D1 and NFL officials that what they look for is not the hook itself, but the rather the "hook <u>and</u> <u>turn</u>." What they would look for is that hook pulling the right shoulder away from the play. In their philosophy, the hook alone is insufficient to call DPI unless it truly impedes the receiver. On this play, they would have a no-call.

Bob

The Pass Interference Play is still on the web site... just not on the front page..
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0kkni/f...ideo/id15.html

hope you enjoy it

David

Just want to add my support for FBullock... Good comments.

It would be very interesting to see the WR the entire play.

I just uploaded a 'live' version of the play, unfortunatly, you do not get the see the WR the entire play. But it may add to your thoughts on the play..Here is the direct link to the pass interference:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0kkni/f...ideo/id15.html

Thanks for everyone's feedback. If I keep getting interest in the site, I will keep posting new and interesting plays (at least in my opinion). Pass on the link to other people who might be interested. Thanks

The B player had time to pull up but the QB was also carrying out a fake. It appeared as if the B player made contact first with his helmet and if so a spearing foul could have been called regardless of whether it was a "late hit." The line judge appeared to focused completely on the spot and pile up around the ball. Can't see the referee. Should he have cleaned up on the action around the QB?

I think you should take another look at the play. The QB was watching the play as it moved into the line. It would be a stretch to say he was carrying on with a fake. Video angle is not good to see the initial contact, but it does not seem to fit the criteria for a spear from what the wing might see.

I see your point about the QB looking towards the line. My point about the potential spearing call is directed towards the referee who would have the better angle. The LJ had his eyes in the right place. I would expect the referee to be making the call.

Using the criteria in Canadian football (which are not much, if any, different that US rules), I've got DPI on the first one and UR on the second.

Mike

NEW PLAY - MOMENTUM
 

I posted a new play on momentum... TAKE A LOOK!

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0kkni/footballvideo/

Re: NEW PLAY - MOMENTUM
 

Join the email list if you want to be emailed when the page is updated with a new play... so much easier for me. Thanks and enjoy. This one is interesting.

defender slid into the EZ.. I'd say spot the ball at the 1 or 1.5 yard line.
Was not easy to tell from the video if while sliding, he had control of the ball until actually reaching the EZ.

Touchback
 

Although it may "technically" be spotted on the 1-2 yd line, I believe the philosophy of many college associations would be to call it a touchback when it's that close.

Probably few if any repercussions for the touchback call.

So if the defender intercepted at the other end of the field and he was down at the 1.5 and slide into the EZ, we should give him a TD? I don't think so.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but when a play becomes dead, the ball is spotted at the deadball spot no matter what no matter where that is. We shouldn't even consider how great a play the defensive team had made to enter into the decision.
Sideline calls are one thing, but calls that involve goal lines have to be done by the book.

I'm not saying the official in the play was wrong to call a TB. I had to look at that video a number times and I'm still not 100% of what I would have done if that were me at the pylon. I'd be looking for help from the offside official on this play to make sure the defender had possession or not while outside the EZ before spotting the ball or signaling TB.

Whoa there, Theis!

I agree on glancing at your offside partner for help. That would be my first move. But that notwithstanding, my take on this play was that from the tape, no matter how many times I watched it, it appears that his possession may be simultaneous with him crossing the goal line. Can't tell for sure. It's still the 'ol, you need to be there.

With this in mind, all I was suggesting is that if the play is that close and you don't have a clear angle, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Touchback.

Wasn't trying to imply a gimmee here, although rereading my post, I can see how you might believe I was. I apologize for being unclear.

I agree with you.