Completion? (Video)
 

Hi All-new to the football forum but heavily involved here on the basketball and volleyball boards.Touchdown called back in a 21-14 loss for the team in white.What say y'all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jJq...ature=youtu.be

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/2jJqrNJt8Ys" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks

On first viewing it looked like a catch to me, although after watching it multiple times I can see a frame where it looked like the ball might have hit the ground. The video is at enough of a different angle for me to believe the covering official might have seen something you can't see in the video.

That said, is there anyone else that the entire down might have needed to be replayed due to offsetting fouls. There appeared to be an illegal block (hands to the face), which was followed by illegal participation of the defensive player who launched his helmet across the field. My understanding of the rule (9-6-4g) is that even if the helmet comes off due to illegal contact from the opponent, you still cannot participate in the play (except for immediate action, which I don't consider chasing the QB to be since he disengaged from the blocker, removed the helmet and then chased the QB). He would not have been required to leave the game (assuming the illegal block is called), but otherwise the illegal participation stands.

As a basketball official timer, I suspect you see a good deal of "Bang-Bang" charge/foul situations, that ultimately boil down to what (exactly) the official making the call believed he saw. From where you were sitting (or where a camera was filming) the view may have been different, or the perception of those looking at that view may have been different. It's much the same with a football complete/incomplete decision, added by the facts the distances and speed, between views, are often markedly different.

The same applies to the safe/out calls that spark so much endless in controversy baseball. If not already, most certainly soon, technology will enable us to differentiate exactly the micro distance between a blade of grass, and the sole of a shoe, whether a fingertip contacts the pebble of a basketball, or the hair on a hand, but TO WHAT END?

We can put sensors in balls, in lines, in uniforms probably even under skin to take all of the uncertainty out of these questions, but what would that do to the enjoyment of the games we all seem so eager to watch?

I do not see anything that says this is an incomplete pass. But then again he had a view the video does not have either. So I think I have to stick with his call, but I see control all the way to the ground and the turn.

Peace

I think he may have been confused by the ball-colored glove the player had on his left hand.

I've got an illegal participation (FED) or Personal Foul (NCAA) on B81 for continued participation after his helmet comes off... I don't see an illegal hand-to-the-face foul on the part of Team A, but the camera angle is terrible for seeing that action.

Even if there was a hands-to-the-face foul, B81 is still sitting out the next down, as the (theoretical) foul didn't cause B81 to lose his helmet... B81 caused himself to lose his helmet.

As for the catch/no-catch... looks like a probable catch to me, but I'll defer to the Back Judge who has a better position/angle than the camera does.

The shadow prevents us from seeing it when he rolls over but the BJ is right there so......it's his call.

May or may not have IUH against the player whose helmet came loose but he basically threw it off so not only would I have IP but Failing to Wear Required Equipment During the Down also

The official said it was incomplete, so it's incomplete.

The official absolutely had a better angle than we do, and the frame rate on this video definitely leaves this in a grey area. If it hit the ground, it did so between frames, but that's entirely possible.

Definitely IP on the defense. Probably a catch, but like others here, I'll defer to the BJ. Not enough evidence on this film to overturn the call even if replay were available.

Depends...at what point is the helmet considered "lost"? If illegal use of the hands by the opponent dislodged the helmet from a secure position, does it matter (to the need to sit out a down) what the player wearing it does to the helmet from there? Or is the player still considered to be wearing the helmet even if it's been knocked loose by such an act?

Also, was #81's throwing the helmet an unsportsmanlike act? He didn't look like he was throwing it demonstratively, nor using it as a weapon. OTOH, he could've simply dropped it once he had it in his hand, no need to throw it. But maybe he thought he could more quickly retrieve it after the play if he threw it in the direction he was going to run in.

There was a live-ball UC & DQ for throwing the helmet during this season in our club. I didn't see it thrown, so can't say whether it was demonstrative or dangerous, but it may be that the very act of throwing it, no matter where or how, is UC. I explain to the kids that the helmets are fragile without a head in them, so they should never be thrown or sat on.

Don't think of it as "lost", the rule (at least in NCAA...I'm too tired/lazy to look up the FED rule right now, but I'm about 95% sure it's the same) is that the issue occurs if the players helmet comes completely off during the down.

By rule, B81 can only remain in the game if an opponent's foul causes B81's helmet to come completely off. In this case, the hypothetical hands-to-the-face foul did not cause B81's helmet to come completely off... B81 took his own helmet off, so he gets to go to the sideline to put it back on.

I personally don't see anything unsportsmanlike about this particular act, but if you were on my crew and threw a UNS flag on it, I wouldn't try to talk you off of it either. With that said, if you tried to go flagrant UNS for this particular act, I would try to talk you off it. To me, flagrant acts are the 'you know it when you see it' kind of thing, usually with a reaction along the lines "oh HELL no".

Make sense?

Sure it makes sense. It may be that our club is extra sensitive about throwing helmets as a holdover from the recent time in which the club owned the great majority of the helmets. Or maybe they just want to nip bad sportsmanship in the bud. A DQ for UC comes with a suspension from the next game, too, if it's in the same season.

I was just thinking now about what a player should do if, whether from his own fault or not, his helmet comes loose during a down, if he doesn't want to commit IP. If he removes it, it would seem his choices are then to:

1. exit the playing area
2. duck away from everyone
3. stand still & protect himself.

But then I thought, if those are his choices, why is he removing the helmet at all? The only problem I could see with doing those same things while leaving the helmet on would be if the helmet had gotten knocked so askew that it blocked his vision, or if the chin strap were threatening to strangle him.